Scott v. Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis
Filing 72
ORDER In accordance with the hearing held in this matter on May 19, 2009, and as announced from the bench; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel responses to written interrogatories and for expenses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as follows: Defendant shall supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 3 and state its policies and procedures after it determines whether there is an outstanding debit balance; In regard to interrogatory No. 15, def endant shall provide plaintiff with a list of similarly situated businesses or persons, who were allowed to advertise with the Suburban Journal five (5) years prior to August 12, 2008, despite having an outstanding debit balance with the Suburban Jou rnal or any of its sister or affiliated companies, including, but not limited to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LLC; Defendant shall answer Interrogatory No. 15(c) and state whether and how the Journal engages in the collection of its debts; Defendant shall answer Interrogatory No. 16, and state the total number of office locations for the Suburban Journal in St. Louis City and County, and identify which offices accept advertisements. The motion is DENIED without prejudice in regard to Interrogato ry No. 4. In the event the Court grants plaintiff leave to file his fifth amended complaint, defendant shall answer Interrogatory No. 4. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. [Doc. 67] Granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 5/19/2009. (NCL)
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.
