Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-cv-01881-WYD-BNB.
January 19, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before me on the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Improper Rule 30(b)(6) Categories (the "Motion for Protective Order"), filed December 16, 2005 [Doc. # 209]. I held a hearing on the Motion for Protective Order on January 17, 2006, and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
GRANTED with respect to Categories 9, 19, 20, and 21. That discovery shall not be had;
GRANTED with respect to Category 18, in view of the stipulation of the parties reached during the hearing. That discovery shall not be had;
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with respect to Category 76. The Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED with respect to that part of Category 76 inquiring about the race and gender composition of the sales work force and certain segments of the sales work force, and GRANTED insofar as Category 76 seeks testimony about "any documents that Hershey claims justifies taking race and gender into consideration in making the decisions concerning selection decisions in the realigned sales force." The Motion for Protective Order is DENIED with respect to the remainder of the topics identified in Category 76;
GRANTED with respect to Category 80; and
DENIED with respect to Category 102.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any additional motions concerning discovery disputes may be filed only after the completion of a Rule 7.1A conference in my presence over which I preside.