Bethel v. U.S.

Full title: SHARON BETHEL, individually and as conservator and guardian of David…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Apr 5, 2007

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01336-PSF-BNB (D. Colo. Apr. 5, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01336-PSF-BNB.

April 5, 2007

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before me on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Request for Forthwith Hearing [Doc. # 139, filed 2/16/2007] (the "Motion to Compel"). I held a hearing on the Motion to Compel and made rulings on the record. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT as follows:

GRANTED with respect to Interrogatory No. 2 [First Set] to require a response with respect to the affirmative defenses of comparative fault, assumption of the risk, consent, and pre-existing condition;

DENIED with respect to Interrogatory No. 3(b) [First Set] because the request has been answered;

GRANTED with respect to Interrogatory No. 8 [First Set] to require the defendants to fully answer the interrogatory based upon a thorough, reasonable, and good faith investigation of the information sought, not limited merely to information "gleaned from the depositions," see Defendant United State's First Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Discovery to Defendant United States of America dated March 16, 2007;

DENIED with respect to Request for Production No. 1 [First Set];

GRANTED with respect to Request for Production No. 9(a) [Fourth Set]. If requested to do so, I will enter an appropriate protective order to limit the disclosure of Dr. Slover's credentialing and privileging files to reasonably protect appropriate privacy interests;

DENIED with respect to Requests for Production No. 9(d), (g), (h), and (i) [Fourth Set] because no responsive documents exist; no responsive documents are in the possession, custody, or control of the defendants; or the documents in the possession, custody, or control of the defendants are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT with respect to Requests for Production No. 9(b), (c), (e), (f), and (j) [Fourth Set];

DENIED with respect to Requests for Production No. 10, 12, 16, 17, and 18 [Fourth Set] because no responsive documents exist; and

DENIED with respect to Interrogatory No. 18 [Fourth Set].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall make a supplemental discovery response consistent with this order on or before April 18, 2007.