VEZINA v. DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORE

Filing 50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 4/15/2011. (NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
MARY E. VEZINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:10-cv-123-RLY-WGH

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on February 10,
2011. (Docket No. 37). Dillard’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was
filed on February 21, 2011. (Docket No. 38). No reply brief has been filed.
The Magistrate Judge, being duly advised, now GRANTS, in part, and
DENIES, in part, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, as follows:
1. Interrogatory No. 1: The Motion to Compel is granted, and the
Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory No. 1 for those store managers and
assistant store managers at the Evansville store during the time period specified
in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2. Interrogatory No. 3: The Motion to Compel is denied.
3. Interrogatory No. 6: The Motion to Compel is denied. However, the
Defendant must provide to the Plaintiff copies of any written documents upon

which it will rely at the summary judgment or trial stages to support its defense
of the Plaintiff’s claim.
4. Interrogatory No. 11: The Motion to Compel is granted, and the
Defendant shall respond to the question: Did complaints from other employees
contribute to his (Larry Runge) dismissal? If the answer is in the affirmative, a
brief description of each complaint should be included in the answer.
5. Interrogatory No. 14: The Motion to Compel is granted, in part. The
Defendant is directed to respond to Interrogatory No. 14, but only for the store
manager and the Plaintiff’s direct supervisor and for the time period specified in
the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
6. Interrogatory No. 17: The Motion to Compel is granted, but only to the
extent the Plaintiff was disciplined in writing or if a memorialization of any verbal
warning is made a part of the Plaintiff’s personnel file.
7. Interrogatory No. 18: The Motion to Compel is granted, but only to the
extent the Plaintiff was disciplined in writing or if a memorialization of any verbal
warning is made a part of the Plaintiff’s personnel file.
Any responses required by this order shall be completed within fifteen (15)
days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2011
__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Copies to:
David E. Crittenden
BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP
[e-mail]
Jeffrey L. Hansford
BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP
[e-mail]
Catherine A. Nestrick
BAMBERGER FOREMAN OSWALD & HAHN
[e-mail]
MARY E. VEZINA
8200 E. Heritage Dr.
Evansville, IN 47715

-3-