Blance v. ARC Automotive, Inc

Filing 15

ORDER re 14 Telephone Status Conference - Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 6/05/2014. (KMK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ANGELA BLANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-CV-579-PLR-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The parties appeared before the undersigned on June 4, 2014, for a telephonic discoverydispute conference pursuant to Section 4(j) of the Scheduling Order [Doc. 9]. Attorney Ursula
Bailey was present representing the Plaintiff, and Attorney Ed Trent was present representing the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff served her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents on the Defendant, and the Defendant responded to the Interrogatories and Requests
for Production in a timely manner. The Defendant declined to answer Interrogatory No. 4
through Interrogatory No. 19, because the Defendant believed that the Interrogatory No. 1,
Interrogatory No. 2, and Interrogatory No. 3, with subparts, met the limit of 25 interrogatories
contained in Rule 33. Thus, the issue before the undersigned was whether Plaintiff had served
“more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

The Court heard the parties’ positions on this issue, and reviewed each of the
interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff with the parties. After discussing the issues with the
Court, the parties agreed that:
1. The Defendant will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 3;
2. The Defendant will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 14;
3. The Defendant will provide Plaintiff with any information it has regarding the
whereabouts of Carol Davis; and
4. The Defendant will answer Interrogatory No. 16 to the best of its ability.
The parties agreed that with these supplements, all issues before the Court were fully
resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

2