Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Woldeab v. Application To Extend Case Management Dates 7-Eleven

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 30, 2007

TESFAZGHI WOLDEAB, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
APPLICATION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DATES 7-ELEVEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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:

Interogatory #7

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.

Interrogatory #8

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.

Interrogatory #9

Defendant's Response to this interrogatory is adequate. Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #9 is DENIED.

Interrogatory #13

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 Plaintiffs in this case suffered discrimination in the application process. Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #13 is DENIED.

Interrogatory #16

This interrogatory is overly broad. The Court cannot discern how all lawsuits brought against Defendant in the last ten years that allege racial discrimination, could be relevant or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiffs are entitled to discover all claims of non-white franchise applicants in California who were denied a franchise during the franchise application process for a reasonable time period. Therefore, Defendant shall further respond to this interrogatory by identifying the name and case number of any cases in California in which non-white franchise applicants in California were denied franchises during the franchise application process from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 2005.*fn1 Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #16 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Request for Production of Documents #1

This Request for Production of Documents is overly broad. The Court cannot discern how all lawsuits brought against Defendant in the last ten years that allege racial discrimination, could be relevant or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiffs are entitled to discover all claims of non-white franchise applicants in California who were denied a franchise during the franchise application process for a reasonable time period. Therefore, Defendant shall further respond to this request for production of documents by producing all documents it has in its possession, custody and control which identify the name and case number of any cases in California in which non-white franchise applicants in California were denied franchises during the franchise application process from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 2005.*fn2 Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents #1 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Request for Production of Documents #8

This Request for Production of Documents is overly broad. The Court cannot discern how all documents that track the racial, ethnic or national origin of all Defendant's franchisees could be relevant or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiffs are entitled to discover the race, national origin or ethnicity of Defendant's franchisees in California. To this end, Defendant has informed the Court that it has no documents that are responsive to this Request, but can produce a report showing the races of all franchisees in California as of October 31, 2006, the date of the discontinuation of Plaintiffs' franchise application. Therefore, Defendant shall provide a formal response to this Request stating that it has no documents responsive to the request and produce a report from data it possesses that shows the races of all franchisees in California as of October 31, 2006. Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents #8 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The date by which all discovery in this case shall be completed is extended to March 23, 2007.*fn3 The date by which all discovery shall be completed is extended solely for the purpose of compliance with this Order. No further extensions of Case Management dates will be granted, except upon a showing of good cause. "Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The date and time of the Settlement Conference on February 12, 2007 at 9:00 AM is vacated and reset for April 11, 2007 at 9:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.