Mogel v. Hanni

Filing 74

ORDER on Discovery Letter Brief (ECF No. 70). (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
MARK MOGEL,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 13-01646 LB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES

13
KATHLEEN HANNI,
14
15

[ECF No. 70]
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

On November 6, 2014, the court held a discovery hearing on the discovery disputes in ECF No.

17

70 and rules as follows. First, and as the court explained at the hearing, RFAs 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12

18

are not appropriate because they are not questions about facts capable of ready answer and instead

19

are questions about the parties’ business and personal relationship. Those issues are nuanced and

20

better addressed through deposition questions. Questions about the parties’ relationship may be

21

elicit information relevant to establish motive, intent, and knowledge of the falsity of the defamation

22

alleged in the case. Second, as to RFAs 13 and 14, to the extent that Mr. Mogel wants to rephrase

23

them to be requests regarding the genuineness of documents or requests for confirmation that

24

complaints (not “false complaints”) were filed on certain dates, he may propound them. Third, as to

25

requests regarding the authenticity of documents, the parties agreed that after the court’s issuance of

26

this order, Ms. Hanni would admit or deny the authenticity of the emails.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2014

C 13-01646 LB
ORDER

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge