Johnson v. City of Oakland, California

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 28 . Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010)

Johnson v. City of Oakland, California

Doc. 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of race and/or gender. Plaintiff was employed with Defendant for over twenty years, and most recently was the Deputy Director of Police, the highest level civilian member of the Oakland Police Department. Plaintiff served document requests and interrogatories on Defendant on March 5, 2010 and April 22, 2010, respectively. Defendant responded on April 19, 2010 and May 24, 2010, respectively. On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel seeking further responses to document request 3, and interrogatories 1, 2, 3 and 6. On August 2, 2010, Judge Seeborg referred this case to this Court for all discovery purposes. On August 10, 2010, Defendant opposed the motion to compel, and on August 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court held a hearing on August 31, 2010. For the reasons stated and as explained in more detail at the hearing, the Court orders as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to document request 3 is denied without prejudice. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that more tailored information should be produced, but the current request is disproportionate and overbroad. The parties shall meet and confer to narrow request 3, and thereafter, Defendant shall provide a further response. v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. / DEBRA TAYLOR JOHNSON, Plaintiff, No. C-09-05157 RS (EDL) ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories 1, 2 and 3 is granted in part. Defendant shall review the interrogatory responses and shall provide a supplemental response providing further details, for example, identifying information about documents that cannot be located.

3.

Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to interrogatory 6 is granted to the extent that Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with information showing the years of service of the relevant employees. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2