Dytch v. Yoon

Filing 28

DISCOVERY ORDER re 27 Letter filed by Albert Dytch. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/10/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)

Download PDF
Case3:10-cv-02915-MEJ Document27 Telephone (925) 672-8452 Telefax (925) 673-1729 Filed11/10/11 Page1 of 2 THOM AS N. STEW ART, III e-mail T_STEW_3 @ Yahoo.com Attorney at Law 369 Blue Oak Lane, 2nd Floor Clayton, CA 94517 November 10, 2011 Magistrate Maria-Elena James Courtroom B; 15th Floor San Francisco, Ca Re: Dytch v. Yoon - CV-2915 MEJ Dear Magistrate James:: This letter is filed to comply with your standing order re discovery disputes. This action is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges that he is a disabled wheelchair user. Defendant owns the property in Oakland where a Restaurant is operated. Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2010 he patronized the Restaurant and encountered violations of the ADA. Plaintiff seeks an injunction, damages and attorneys’ fees. This Action was set to be mediated in August 2011. However, right before the mediation was to take place, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, money was to be paid by September 17, 2011. Payment of agreed upon money was stated in the agreement to be material. Pursuant to the agreement, if the money was not paid, the Action would continue. The money still has not been paid. On September 20, 2011, Plaintiff propounded Interrogatories to the Defendant. Plaintiff has made attempts to induce the Defendant to serve Answers to the Interrogatories. These attempts have been e-mails, telephone conversations and the required “meet and confer”. Still, no Answers to the Interrogatories have been served. Unresolved Dispute Defendant is obligated to serve Answers to the Interrogatories, but has not done so. Plaintiff’s Position Defendant is obligated to serve Answers to the Interrogatories pursuant to FRCP 33. Case3:10-cv-02915-MEJ Document27 Filed11/10/11 Page2 of 2 Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James Re: 11-2915 Discovery Dispute letter November 10, 2011 Page -2Defendant’s Position Defendant does not have a position. Very truly yours, S/Thomas N. Stewart, III S/David B. Whitman THOMAS N. STEWART, III DAVID B. WHITMAN TNS/t As there is no indication that the parties have met and conferred in person, the Court shall not consider Plaintiff's letter. The dispute may be resubmitted in compliance with the undersigned's discovery standing order, and specifically all requirements listed in paragraph 2. es RT A H ER FO NO lena Jam aria-E Judge M R NIA D RDERE OO IT IS S LI UNIT ED S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O S Dated: November 10, 2011 N F D IS T IC T O R C

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?