Opinion
20-CV-1453-JLS-WVG
08-16-2021
ALBERTO LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. SMITHS DETECTION, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 16, 2021, this Court convened a telephonic discovery conference pursuant to its August 12, 2021 Order. (Doc. No. 24.) Justin Walker appeared for Plaintiff. Lilah Sutphen appeared for Defendant. At the outset of the conference, the Parties notified the Court that they resolved their dispute concerning Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 3. The outstanding dispute arises from Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 14, which asks Defendant to “State the total amount of NET SALES COMMISSIONS SMITHS contends LOPEZ would be entitled to if he were still presently employed with SMITHS.” Defendant responded with objections on the basis of speculation, vagueness, and ambiguity.
Plaintiff argues Defendant's failure to substantively respond to the interrogatory obscures the damages at issue here, namely what amount of commissions Plaintiff may have received under each of the contracts Plaintiff worked on during his employment with Defendant. Defendant maintains Plaintiffs Interrogatory forces Defendant to engage in conjecture two-fold, first by assuming Plaintiffs employment would have continued with Defendant and second by assuming Plaintiffs performance would have been steadily satisfactory such that Defendant would have allowed Plaintiff to continue servicing each of the contracts at issue.
During the conference, the Court invited the Parties to consider whether they would be both be amenable to Defendant (1) substantively answering Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 14 for each contract at issue while (2) prefacing that such response presumes Plaintiffs employment would not have been terminated and Plaintiffs performance would have been sufficiently satisfactory such that Plaintiff would have remained staffed on each of the contracts at issue. Both Plaintiff and Defendant responded affirmatively and agreed to Defendant supplementing its response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 14, as proposed by the Court and outlined herein.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce its supplemental response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 14 no later than the end of today, August 16, 2021 , to ensure Plaintiff may substantively depose Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) on this discrete topic, amongst others, tomorrow, August 17, 2021, as planned and agreed to by the Parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.