Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Haile v. System Sonoma County

September 1, 2009

TSEGAI HAILE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SYSTEM SONOMA COUNTY, AND D ' DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon.elizabeth D. L Aporte

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MENTAL SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL GRANTING IN HOSPITAL; ST. JOSEPH HEALTH EXAMINATION AND PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On August 25, 2009, the following motions filed by Defendant Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital came on regularly for hearing:

1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses;

2. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions; and

3. Defendant's Motion to Compel Independent Mental Examination.

David M. Poore appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Kevin F. Woodall appeared on behalf of Defendant.

After reviewing the moving and opposition papers and considering the arguments of counsel with respect to all three motions, the Court rules as follows:

I. Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery

In its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Defendant requested the Court compel Plaintiff to provide responses to its Interrogatories and Requests for Admission after Plaintiff failed to serve responses when due.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff served responses to Defendant's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission prior to the Court's ruling today. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not appropriately responded to Defendant's Interrogatories and therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to provide a supplemental response to Defendant's Interrogatories on or before Friday, August 28, 2009. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff will prepare a two-paragraph statement in his supplemental response for each witness identified by Plaintiff in response to Defendant's Interrogatories that sets forth the specific facts of which Plaintiff believes each witness has knowledge. if no such statement has previously been provided.

The Court further ORDERS that Defendant may take additional depositions up to five of witnesses identified in Plaintiff's interrogatory responses without violating the June 26, 2009 fact-discovery cutoff imposed by the Court.

Defendant shall complete the depositions by October 9, 2009. Plaintiff may not engage in further fact discovery.

II. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions

In connection with its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Defendant requested the Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for requiring Defendant to bring a motion to compel discovery. Defendant also requested the Court deem admitted the facts contained in each of Defendant's Request for Admission as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) and further preclude Plaintiff from calling as a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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