IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 10, 2009
CHRISTINE EARL, PLAINTIFF,
NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
A number of discovery disputes are pending before the court, having been submitted on letter briefs. See Docket Nos. 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48 (motions to compel); Docket No. 49 (order); Docket Nos. 50-53 (letter briefs). Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Within fifteen days from the date of this order, defendant shall respond to the disputed interrogatories propounded in plaintiff's second set of special interrogatories, providing the information requested in those interrogatories for the 380 employees in the position of Membership Representative, as identified in defendant's letter briefing, dated February 3, 2009 (docket no. 53). The temporal scope may be limited to five years prior to plaintiff's termination. The parties are reminded that discovery is not a timing device; failure to disclose relevant information is likely to result in the party withholding the information being precluded at trial from introducing such evidence.
2. Following production of defendant's responses to the special interrogatories as directed above, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the scope of the documents to be produced in response to plaintiff's request for production of documents (set three), nos. 2 and 3. If no resolution can be reached, the parties may bring the matter before this court by letter brief, not to exceed four pages.
3. The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the circumstances reflected in the record before it on the motions hereby resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5)(A).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.