Opinion
No. CIV S-03-2682 MCE KJM.
March 21, 2007
ORDER
Defendants' and plaintiffs' motions to compel discovery responses, as well as plaintiffs' motions for a protective order, for leave to serve late responses to requests for admission and for sanctions, came on regularly for hearing on March 21, 2007. Gary Gorski appeared for plaintiffs. Jeri Pappone and John Lavra appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion to compel responses to their second set of interrogatories, numbers 14 to 20, is granted; to the extent defendants' motion covers other discovery requests, it is denied as moot. Plaintiffs Mehl and Lau shall serve these responses by March 23, 2007.
2. Defendants' motion to compel further responses to their first set of interrogatories, numbers 4 to 6 and 11 to 12, is granted. Defendants' motion to compel verification by plaintiff Mehl of all the interrogatory responses already provided also is granted. Plaintiffs Mehl and Lau shall serve all the foregoing responses no later than one week before their continued depositions, as ordered below.
3. Defendants' motion to compel further deposition testimony of plaintiffs Mehl and Lau is granted; defendants shall be allowed to continue the deposition of each plaintiff up to the maximum amount of time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order preventing the taking of further deposition testimony is denied.
4. Plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery responses is denied based on defendants' counsel's representation at the hearing that the discovery has been fully responded to and no information responsive to plaintiffs' requests is being withheld.
5. Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions based on defendants' failure to fully comply with this court's prior order of December 1, 2006 is denied in light of defendants' motion for reconsideration pending before the District Judge.
6. Plaintiffs' unopposed request that their responses to Requests for Admission be deemed timely is granted; all other aspects of the motion with regard to Requests for Admission is denied as moot.