The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Leo S. Papas U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff's Application to Extend the Case Management Dates is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The date by which each expert witness designated by a party shall prepare a written report and provide the report to all other parties, is extended to February 20, 2007.
The date by which any expert witness designated by a party shall supplement any of his/her expert reports regarding evidence intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified in an expert report submitted by another party, is extended to March 5, 2007.
Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Court addresses each interrogatory and request for production of documents:
Plaintiffs' interrogatory is overly broad. Moreover, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant address the issue of whether or not the conditions under which Plaintiffs took the test were sub-standard, oppressive, or would otherwise provide a basis upon which the Court could conclude that a comparison of other facilities in which the test is given, in California or elsewhere, is necessary or appropriate. Only local testing conditions are relevant to Plaintiffs' claims, absent some showing by Plaintiffs that they were subjected to sub-standard conditions when they took the test. Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #7 is DENIED.
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately explain how Defendant's response to the interrogatory is "evasive" or otherwise fails to substantiate its belief that the test is adequate. Defendant's response is sufficient. Plaintiff's Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #8 is DENIED.
Defendant's Response to this interrogatory is adequate. Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #9 is DENIED.
Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs' Complaint (and First Amended Complaint) at paragraph 20, indicates that "non-white franchisees are statistically under-represented with respect to the population of California" is correct. Plaintiff has not clearly alleged a nation-wide pattern of discrimination. While paragraph 20 contains allegations which arguably exceed California boundaries, Plaintiffs' claims of alleged intentional discrimination are locally focused. Therefore, the Court concludes that the information sought in this interrogatory will not lead to admissible evidence with regard to whether or not ...