UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
January 27, 2011
TITLE: MEREDITH OLIVER
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Andrew J. Wistrich, Magistrate Judge
PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
FURTHER ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (SUBMITTED MATTERS ONLY)
During the hearing, the court ruled on nearly every aspect of the motion, taking only the following aspects of the motion under submission: requests 60-64 and requests 64-72. As to these requests, the only real dispute concerns the applicable time period. Defendants have produced documents (or, as to some information, created a report) for the period January 1, 2008 to the present. Plaintiff, however, contends that responsive material from earlier years also is relevant. The temporal scope advocated by defendants is too narrow because decisions made in 2009 reasonably could have been affected by performance or discipline that occurred during previous years, even though such performance or discipline occurred during the reign of a different supervisor. Morever, where, as here, the sample size is relatively small, turnover rates for just 1 or 2 years arguably may not be meaningful. Nevertheless, the temporal scope requested by plaintiff is too broad. The motion is granted as to these requests to the following extent: the temporal scope of defendants' response is expanded to the period January 1, 2006 to the present. In respects other than temporal scope, defendants production in response to these requests has not been shown to be inadequate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk CIVIL-GEN
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.