Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00528-PAB-BNB.
April 27, 2010
ORDER
This matter arises on Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. # 54, filed 3/24/2010] (the "Motion to Compel"). I held a hearing on the Motion to Compel this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
GRANTED to strike plaintiff's use of "canned' objections based on burden, harassment, relevancy, vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, and the like. The objections are asserted to all or virtually all of the requests, without any statement in support, and apparently without any legal or factual basis. The plaintiff may assert meaningful objections, supported by law and fact, where appropriate in connection with its supplemental discovery responses;
GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories No. 1 and 8. The requested information is relevant to matters at issue in the case or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the responses are incomplete or evasive;
DENIED insofar as it seeks to require the produced documents to be organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the request;
DENIED with respect to Production Requests No. 1 and 3, all responsive documents having been produced;
DENIED with respect to Interrogatory No. 5 because the requested information is not available in the manner requested;
DENIED with respect to Interrogatory No. 15, which seeks information which is neither relevant to any matter at issue in the case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and
DENIED as moot with respect to Interrogatories No. 7 and 16.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall make supplemental discovery responses consistent with this order and in full compliance with the formalities of the federal rules of civil procedure on or before May 11, 2010.