Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp. et al

Filing 25

ORDER: A discovery issue was referred to the undersigned by Judge Trauger for resolution. A telephone conference was held with the parties in this matter on 5/1/2012. The Plaintiff filed specific requests and objections, which are set out in a docume nt entitled Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions which will be filed as Exhibit 1 to this Order. After discussion with counsel, the Magistrate Judge directs the Defendants to either admit or deny the Request for Admission 1. From the discussion, this appears to be the one that should be admitted. Concerning the Request for Admission 2, the Magistrate Judge believes that this is part of the settlement discussions, and as such, need not be answered. As to Req uest for Admission 3, the Magistrate Judge holds that the Defendants should either admit or deny whether there was a second telephone call on 11/8/2011. Request for Admission 4 is more complicated and difficult. It requests that the Defendants admit or deny statements purportedly made by the Defendants' in-house counsel to Plaintiff's counsel before the lawsuit was actually filed. The parties are directed to file a brief on this issue with case citations within seven days. The fifth request for admission is apparently being handled through other means of discovery and no ruling was needed or requested concerning Request for Admission 5. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 5/2/12. (dt)