Bedford v. City of Hayward et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART re 41 Joint Discovery Letter BriefJOINT LETTER OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT CITY OF HAYWARD ON DISCOVERY ISSUES filed by City of Hayward, Phillip M. Bedford. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 8/21/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

Phillip M. Bedford,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00294-JCS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JOINT LETTER
MOTION TO COMPEL [Docket No. 41]

City of Hayward, et al.,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17

The parties submitted a joint letter dated August 7, 2012. Good cause appearing, the
Court Orders as follows:
1. The motion to compel a futher response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1 is DENIED.
The responsive documents are sufficiently described.
2. The motion to compel a futher response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 3 is

18

GRANTED subject to the entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order.

19

The parties are directed to submit a joint proposed protective order within seven (7)

20

days of this Order.

21

3. The motion to compel a futher response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 4, 6. 8, 9,

22

and 10 is DENIED without prejudice. These interrogatories are in the nature of

23

contention interrogatories, which are appropriate only at the close of discovery.

24
25

4. The motion to compel a futher response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 7 is
GRANTED.

26

5. The motion to compel a futher response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 11-17 is

27

DENIED. These interrogatories are subtantially overbroad -- nearly all of the

28

information that would be responsive to these interrogatories would be completely

1

irrelevant to this case. Plaintiff may propoud narrowly crafted interrogatories on these

2

subjects.
6. The request to stay discovery in DENIED. Additional responses required by this

3

Order shall be provided within thirty (30) days.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated:

August 21, 2012

8
9

________________________
Joseph C. Spero
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2