Century Aluminum Company et al v. AGCS Marine Insurance Co.
Filing
74
ORDER DENYING 66 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 02/24/12. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
10
CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY, et al.,
11
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Plaintiffs,
12
13
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL
v.
AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO.,
Re: Dkt. No. 66
14
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
The parties submitted a joint supplemental letter brief concerning their continued
19
dispute as to Century Aluminum’s responses to interrogatories Nos. 8, 14, and 16. Dkt.
20
No. 66. Since filing their initial letter briefs, Dkt. Nos. 59, 60, and 62, and addressing the
21
Court’s order regarding meet and confer requirements, Dkt. No. 63, the parties have now
22
resolved their differences as to interrogatories Nos. 10 and 12.
23
Regarding Century’s responses to interrogatory No. 8, AGCS’s motion to compel
24
further responses is DENIED. To the extent AGCS wishes to discover “side agreements
25
for discounts off of invoices for other repairs,” Dkt. No. 66 at 2, it may do so in a separate
26
interrogatory or by deposition. This topic was not specified in interrogatory No. 8.
27
28
AGCS’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories Nos. 14 and 16 is
also DENIED. Century’s production and identification of 30,000 responsive documents,
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Motion to Compel
1
considered in the context of other discovery produced by Century, was sufficient under
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d)(1).
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
DATED: February 24, 2012
____________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Motion to Compel
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?