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.

Margarita Arriaga, By v. Target Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 29, 2011

MARGARITA ARRIAGA, BY CHRISTINA BRYSON, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Defendant's motion to compel came on regularly for hearing September 28, 2011. Jennifer Marsh appeared for plaintiff. Jerry Deschler appeared for defendant. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The motion to compel (dkt. no. 22) is granted in part and denied in part.

a. The request for a limiting order based on plaintiff's initial disclosures is denied.*fn1

b. The parties have agreed to dates set in November, 2011 for the depositions of the guardian ad litem, Christina Bryson, and plaintiff. Those dates are confirmed. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to appear at the depositions may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

c. Plaintiff's counsel confirmed at the hearing that the claim for abuse of process is dismissed.

d. Verifications to plaintiff's responses and supplemental responses to interrogatories shall be provided within seven days.

e. Within seven days, plaintiff shall provide a supplemental response to defendant's request for production of documents that all responsive documents in her possession have been produced.

f. Within seven days, plaintiff shall provide a release, on the form provided by defendant, for records pertaining to plaintiff from EDD and Alta California Regional Center.

g. Within seven days, plaintiff shall provide a verified supplemental response to interrogatory no. 11 providing the names of defendant's employees, to the extent known, who committed acts which plaintiff contends support the claim for punitive damages.

2. The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the circumstances reflected in the record before it on this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5)(A).


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.