From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

JAMA INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. INCORPORATED COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Aug 29, 2005
No. CIV 04-1173 JB/ACT (D.N.M. Aug. 29, 2005)

Opinion

No. CIV 04-1173 JB/ACT.

August 29, 2005

Jeffrey A. Dahl, Lamb, Metzgar, Lines Dahl, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Pamela S. Bacon, Peter A. Dwyer, Daniel A. Gonzales, Los Alamos County, County Attorney's Office, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Randy S. Bartell, Carolyn A. Wolf, Montgomery Andrews, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants.


ORDER


THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's [sic] First Sets of Discovery Requests, filed April 27, 2005 (Doc. 34). The Court held a hearing on this matter on July 8, 2005. Consistent with the Court's ruling at the hearing on this motion, and for the reasons given at the time of the hearing, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs' motion to compel an amended answer on interrogatory number five is denied. On interrogatory number six, the Court orders the Defendants to put their response in the form of an interrogatory answer and submit that answer to the Plaintiffs. The Court also orders the Defendants, on interrogatory number seven, to submit an amended answer which is separated by Defendant and states each Defendants' governmental interest and alternatives considered, if any. The Plaintiffs concede that the parties resolved the motion to compel on interrogatory number ten, so the Court need not issue a ruling on that matter. See Transcript of Hearing at 10:6-8 (taken July 8, 2005).

The Court's citations to the transcript of the hearing refer to the Court Reporter's original, unedited version. Any finalized transcript may contain slightly different page and/or line numbers.

On the requests for production, the Court orders the Defendants to submit an amended privilege log to the Plaintiffs. In the amended log, the Defendants must describe the documents with more specificity.

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's [sic] First Sets of Discovery Requests is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel an amended answer to interrogatory five is denied. The Defendants are ordered to filed amended answers to interrogatories numbers six and seven and to provide the Plaintiff a more detailed privilege log. The Plaintiffs' motion is otherwise denied.


Summaries of

JAMA INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. INCORPORATED COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Aug 29, 2005
No. CIV 04-1173 JB/ACT (D.N.M. Aug. 29, 2005)
Case details for

JAMA INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. INCORPORATED COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS

Case Details

Full title:JAMA INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a foreign corporation, JAMA HOLDINGS, L.L.C., a…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Aug 29, 2005

Citations

No. CIV 04-1173 JB/ACT (D.N.M. Aug. 29, 2005)