HAWKINS v. ALORICA INCORPORATED

Filing 300

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 283 Motion to Compel. See order for specifics. Because this motion has been granted, in part, and denied, in part, the court will not assess attorney's fees to either side at this time. To the extent the matter is litigated, the appropriate awarding of attorney's fees for this motion will be taken up at that time. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 5/22/2013. (NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
RENEE M. HAWKINS, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALORICA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-283-JMS-WGH

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery filed
on March 28, 2013. (Docket Nos. 283-84). Defendant filed its Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery on April 15, 2013. (Docket No. 289).
Plaintiff’s Reply was filed on April 25, 2013. (Docket No. 291).
The Magistrate Judge, being duly advised, now GRANTS, in part, and
DENIES, in part, the motion, as follows:
1. Defendant shall comply with Plaintiff’s Request for Production Nos. 1
and 2 by producing documents that explain its timekeeping system and how
work is converted to compensation. The Magistrate Judge concludes that these
documents are trade secrets and, therefore, will be produced pursuant to the
terms of the protective order which was attached as Exhibit A as a proposed

Joint Motion to Amend the Protective Order. (Docket No. 289). The court adopts
that proposed order as a part of this Order. The production of those materials
will be made within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.
2. With respect to Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 3, the Motion is
denied for the reasons specified in Defendant’s Opposition.
3. The Motion to Compel is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production Nos. 4 and 5.
4. The Motion to Compel with respect to Plaintiff’s Request for Production
Nos. 6 and 7 is granted. Defendant shall provide the “Excel spreadsheet,” and
shall make available to Plaintiff the data underlying the spreadsheet within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The data underlying the
spreadsheet will be made available in the precise format used to compile the
spreadsheet.
5. The Motion to Compel is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production Nos. 8 through 11 for the reasons specified in Defendant’s
Opposition. However, with respect to Request No. 9, Defendant may not seek
admission at trial of any exhibit which has not been produced as a part of
supplementation of this answer at the close of discovery.
6. To the extent the Plaintiff has complained that the CD which produced
certain information is password protected, that objection is overruled because
the password is a means of protecting sensitive information, and Plaintiff’s
counsel has been provided with the password.

-2-

7. Because this motion has been granted, in part, and denied, in part, the
court will not assess attorney’s fees to either side at this time. To the extent the
matter is litigated, the appropriate awarding of attorney’s fees for this motion will
be taken up at that time.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2013

__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Served electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record.

-3-