Gooden v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.

Full title: SHEILA GOODEN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 7, 2013

2:11-cv-02595-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013)

Opinion

SHEILA GOODEN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and SUNTRUST BANK, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-02595-JAM-DAD United States District Court, E.D. California. January 7, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         This matter came before the court on January 4, 2013, for hearing of plaintiff Sheila Gooden's motion to compel discovery. (Doc. No. 41.) Attorney Eric Buescher appeared on behalf of plaintiff Sheila Gooden and attorney Philip Barilovits appeared on behalf of defendant Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.

         Upon consideration of the parties' arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth in detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff's December 5, 2012 motion to compel, (Doc. No. 41), is granted subject to the protective order already in place, except as to the redacted account numbers which may remain redacted;

         2. Defendant shall have ten days from the date of service of this order to produce the discovery responses at issue; and

         3. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied.