The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
On July 9, 2010, Defendant Essegian filed a Motion to Compel. (Doc. 70). A Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute was filed on July 30, 2010. (Doc. 85). A hearing on the motion was held on August 6, 2010. Richard Hamlish personally appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, Pacific Marine Center and Sona Vartanian ("Plaintiffs"). Michael Linden personally appeared on behalf of Defendant Essegian.
I. Stipulations of the Parties
At the hearing, the parties participated in a further meet and confer and agreed to the following:
A. Interrogatories to Pacific Marine Center Inc.
Interrogatory No. 4: Plaintiffs have agreed to provide the last-known addresses of all employees of the plaintiff corporation who are not current employees. Defendant Essegian agrees to contact all current employees through Plaintiffs' counsel.
Interrogatory Nos. 20-22: Plaintiffs agree to provide a short, plain statement describing the documents supporting the corporation's claim for economic damages, including loss of business revenue. The statement is as follows: "The sales journals are a list of each and every sale that was transacted between July 1, 2008 and April 30, 2010. The sales journals tend to show the stream of business by Pacific Marine Center, Inc. The sale amounts tend to show that Pacific Marine Center's sales decreased after the DMV search and seizure on August 10, 2009. The sales summaries and sales tax returns tend to reinforce the data in the sales journal."
Interrogatory No. 21: Defendant Essegian agrees to contact witness Mardig Krikorian through Plaintiffs' counsel.
B. Interrogatories to Sona Vartanian Interrogatory Nos. 6, 9:
Defendant Essegian agrees to withhold seeking relief from the Court as to these interrogatories pending the outcome of his motion for evidentiary sanctions.
Interrogatory No. 15: In light of the representation made by Plaintiffs' counsel that Sona Vartanian, individually, is not seeking economic damages, there is no need to provide a further response to this interrogatory.
In addition the above, there were three contested issues remaining. The Court made the following ...