|
EXHIBIT NO.
|
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
|
|
201
|
Sustained.
|
|
202
|
Overruled.
|
|
203
|
Overruled.
|
|
204
|
Sustained. The 1997 new hire documents do not
“prove the starting date of her employment at
Language Line, LLC, ” as Plaintiff claims. The
1997 new hire documents are from AT&T Language
Line Services, not Language Line, LLC.
|
|
205
|
Overruled.
|
|
206
|
Overruled.
|
|
207
|
Overruled.
|
|
208
|
Overruled.
|
|
209
|
Overruled.
|
|
210 - Bates pages 000761-000764, 000767
|
Overruled.
The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362
are granted as to paragraph 6 of Bates 000762-000763.
Otherwise, Defendant’s proposed redactions are
denied.
|
|
211
|
Overruled.
|
|
212
|
Overruled.
|
|
217 - pages 2-5, 53-60
|
Defendants propose redacting information prior to
August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of
liability for any cause of action in the instant
case, from Plaintiff’s summary chart. ECF No.
362. Defendant’s proposed redaction is granted.
Defendant’s objection to pay statements prior
to August 21, 2010 is granted.
|
|
218 - pages 1-32, 33
|
Defendants propose redacting information prior to
August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of
liability for any cause of action in the instant
case, on Plaintiff’s August 2010 monthly
calendar. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s proposed
redaction is granted.
Defendant’s objection to monthly calendars
prior to August 21, 2010 is granted.
|
|
219 - pages 1-9
|
Overruled.
|
|
220 - Bates pages 001944-001945, 004902
|
Defendant did not object to Bates 004901. Overruled
as to Bates 004902. Sustained as to Bates
001944-001945 which duplicate Bates 004901-4902. The
redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are
denied.
|
|
221 - Bates pages 001824, 001942
|
Overruled. The redactions proposed by Defendant in
ECF No. 362 are denied.
|
|
Confidential 222
|
Overruled. However, the document shall be submitted
under seal.
|
|
223 - 001273, 001275, 001279
|
Overruled.
The Court rules on the redactions proposed by
Defendant in ECF No. 362 as follows:
- Granted as to the term “regular hours”
on Bates 001273.
- Granted as to “fraudulently” and
“and falsified” on Bates 001279.
- Granted as to Plaintiff’s redactions on Bates
001273, 001275, 001279.
- Otherwise denied.
|
|
224
|
Defendant and Plaintiff are in agreement as to what
should be redacted. The Court grants the
parties’ redactions as set forth in ECF No.
362.
|
|
225
|
Overruled as to LLS003946 and LLS003947. Sustained as
to LLS003952 because it is a duplicate of LLS003947.
The parties shall redact “fraudulently”
and “Superior” from LLS 003947.
|
|
226
|
Sustained.
|
|
227
|
Sustained as to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
10. Otherwise overruled.
|
|
228
|
Sustained.
|
|
229
|
Sustained.
|
|
230
|
Sustained.
|
|
231
|
Sustained.
|
|
233
|
Sustained.
|
|
234 - Bates pages 003111 - 003121
|
Defendants propose redacting information prior to
August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of
liability for any cause of action in the instant
case. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s proposed
redactions are granted and thus moot
Defendant’s objection.
|
|
235
|
Sustained.
|
|
236
|
Sustained.
|
|
237
|
Sustained.
|
|
238
|
Sustained.
|
|
239
|
Sustained.
|
|
240 - 6:19-25; 10:2-4
|
Sustained. The redactions proposed by Defendant in
ECF No. 362 are moot.
|
|
241
|
Sustained.
|
|
242
|
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s
Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
|
|
243
|
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s
Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
|
|
244
|
Overruled.
|
|
245
|
Overruled.
|
|
246
|
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s
Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
|
|
247
|
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s
Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
|
|
248
|
Overruled.
|
|
249
|
Sustained.
|
|
250
|
Overruled.
|
|
251
|
Sustained.
|
|
252
|
Overruled.
|
|
253
|
Overruled.
|