From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilmore v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 6, 2010
No. CIV S-09-02180 JAM DAD (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-02180 JAM DAD.

December 6, 2010


ORDER


This case came before the court on December 3, 2010, for hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to propound more than the 25 interrogatories authorized under Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Larry Lockshin, Esq. appeared for plaintiffs. Naisha Covarrubias, Esq. appeared for defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The parties' Joint Discovery Stipulation Regarding Additional Interrogatories (Doc. No. 120) was considered, along with the parties' arguments at the hearing.

For the reasons set forth in great detail on the record, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to propound more than 25 interrogatories (Doc. No. 90) is denied.

DATED: December 3, 2010.


Summaries of

Gilmore v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 6, 2010
No. CIV S-09-02180 JAM DAD (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010)
Case details for

Gilmore v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY GILMORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-09-02180 JAM DAD (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010)