Lowe v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Filing 78

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 4/18/2013: Plaintiffs' motion to compel 56 is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in open court. Defendant has until May 17, 2013, to comply with this order. A status hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 1019. Defendant's lead counsel may participate by phone. The discovery deadline of June 24, 2013, is stricken. The court urges Plaintiffs to retain an expert as soon as possible in order to perform the sampling the court ordered so that they may confer with Defendant on how best to sample the universe of the telephone numbers and the specific data the expert will require. As emphasized in open court, if the parties are able to agree to a better protocol for sampling, they are encouraged to do so. (For further details see written opinion.) Mailed notice (ma,)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

CASE NUMBER
CASE
TITLE

Thomas M. Durkin

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

Young B. Kim

DATE

April 18, 2013

12 C 2009
Lowe vs. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiffs' motion to compel [56] is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in open court.
Defendant has until May 17, 2013, to comply with this order. A status hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2013,
at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 1019. Defendant's lead counsel may participate by phone. The discovery deadline
of June 24, 2013, is stricken. The court urges Plaintiffs to retain an expert as soon as possible in order to perform
the sampling the court ordered so that they may confer with Defendant on how best to sample the universe of the
telephone numbers and the specific data the expert will require. As emphasized in open court, if the parties are
able to agree to a better protocol for sampling, they are encouraged to do so.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

01:00

STATEMENT
For the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to provide supplemental answers and
documents in response to first (R. 56-3), second (R. 56-4) and third (R. 56-5) discovery requests is granted in
part and denied in part:
First Discovery Requests
As to the first set, Plaintiff Carl Lowe moved to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to interrogatory
numbers 2-5 and 7-12, request for production of documents numbers 1-6, 8-15 and 18-20, and request to admit
numbers 7 and 8. The motion is granted in part and Defendant is ordered to supplement its answers and
responses to the following: (1) interrogatories 3, 4, 7, and 9-11; and (2) request for production of documents
numbers 1-6, 8-11, 14, 18 and 20.
Second Discovery Requests
As to the second, Plaintiffs Lowe and Jacob Durfee moved to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to
interrogatory numbers 1 and 4-7, request for production of documents number 1, and request to admit numbers
8, 9, 20-25, 33 and 38. The motion is granted in part and Defendant is ordered to supplement its response to
request for production of documents number 1.
Third Discovery Requests
As to the third set, Plaintiff Malinda De Jesus moved to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to
interrogatory numbers 1-18, request for production of documents numbers 1-9, 11, 13, 14, and 19, and request
to admit numbers 2-5.
Defendant is ordered to supplement its answers and responses to the following: (1) interrogatories 9, 11 and 1412C2009 Lowe vs. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
17; and (2) request for production of documents numbers 13 and 14.

12C2009 Lowe vs. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Page 2 of 2