From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McIntosh v. Powanco, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Oct 26, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00931-MSK-BNB (D. Colo. Oct. 26, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00931-MSK-BNB

10-26-2012

KRISTIN MCINTOSH, Plaintiff, v. POWANCO, INC., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a Taste of Thailand, and JPE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Defendants.


Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland


ORDER

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories [Doc. # 27, filed 9/21/2012] (the "First Motion to Compel");

(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel More Complete Production of Documents [Doc. # 28, filed 9/21/2012] (the "Second Motion to Compel"); and

(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Powanco's Answer to Amended Complaint [Doc. # 33, filed 10/2/2012] (the "Motion to Strike").

I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The First Motion to Compel [Doc. # 27] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

• GRANTED to require a complete response to Interrogatory 1;

• GRANTED to require the defendants to respond to Interrogatory 5 insofar as it seeks the identification of all documents concerning modifications or renovations of the Subject Facility as defined in the Amended Complaint; and

• DENIED in all other respects.

(2) The Second Motion to Compel [Doc. # 28] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

• GRANTED to require the defendants to produce all responsive documents that are not confidential; and

• DENIED in all other respects. The defendants shall have to and including November 9, 2012, within which to file a motion for either a blanket protective order or for a particularized protective order with respect to those documents which they claim are subject to protection due to their confidential nature or otherwise. See Gillard v. Boulder Valley School Dist., 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000).

(3) The Motion to Strike [Doc. # 33] is DENIED.

(4) The defendants shall provide supplemental discovery responses consistent with this Order and in full compliance with the formalities of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before November 9, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Boyd N. Boland

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

McIntosh v. Powanco, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Oct 26, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00931-MSK-BNB (D. Colo. Oct. 26, 2012)
Case details for

McIntosh v. Powanco, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KRISTIN MCINTOSH, Plaintiff, v. POWANCO, INC., a Colorado corporation…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Oct 26, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00931-MSK-BNB (D. Colo. Oct. 26, 2012)