Arnold et al v. DirecTV, Inc. et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied without prejudice with respect to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory at issue. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall produce all documents requ ested by Plaintiffs to the extent such documents relate to Aerosat. If Defendants have already done so, they shall so certify in writing to Plaintiffs. Defendants shall also certify in writing to Plaintiffs whether DIRECTV's relationship with th e other HSPs in question differed, during the relevant time period, from its relationship with Aerosat, as reflected in the documents already produced or to be produced, and if so, how. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, by filing a motion with the Court, request an amendment to any deadlines now set in this case. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/3/2011. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMIE ARNOLD and CLINTON
FEGER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

)

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DIRECTV, INC., d/b/a DIRECTV HOME
)
SERVICES; and DTV HOME SERVICES II, )
LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:10CV00352 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This putative class action is before the Court on the named Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc.
#56) to compel Defendants to respond more fully to Plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests.
Oral argument was held on the motion on June 3, 2011. The motion to compel shall be
granted in part and denied in part.
As more fully stated at the hearing, Defendants must respond, at this point in the
proceedings, to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents to the extent that the
documents relate to DIRECTV’s relationship with the HSPs that employed Plaintiffs
(herein referred to as “Aerosat”), but not with respect to other HSPs, and to the extent that
such documents relate to the named Plaintiffs and any individuals who may have opted in
to date.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied without
prejudice with respect to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory at issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall produce all documents
requested by Plaintiffs to the extent such documents relate to Aerosat. If Defendants have
already done so, they shall so certify in writing to Plaintiffs. Defendants shall also certify
in writing to Plaintiffs whether DIRECTV’s relationship with the other HSPs in question
differed, during the relevant time period, from its relationship with Aerosat, as reflected
in the documents already produced or to be produced, and if so, how.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, by filing a motion with the
Court, request an amendment to any deadlines now set in this case.

_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2011.

2