Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01741-LTB-CBS.
January 23, 2008
ORDER
The court, having reviewed Defendants' Motion to Clarify Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (DOC. # 29) and Plaintiff's Response (doc. # 30), and being otherwise fully advised, GRANTS Defendants' Motion.
The Court's Minute Order of January 8, 2008 granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (doc. # 24), and directed Defendants to respond to interrogatory nos. 1, 5 and 6, and request for production nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. The court has listed to the tape recordings from the hearing on January 8, 2008. During that hearing, the court stated that Defendants were not objecting to request for production nos. 5 and 6, and the court would therefore require responses to those requests. My statement incorrectly reflected Defendants' position as set forth in their Memorandum Opposing Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery (doc. # 26). In fact, Defendants indicated they would "gladly answer" request for production nos. 6 and 7. Given Defendants' lack of objection, it was my intention to require responses to those specific requests, and not request for production no. 5. It is clear that I misspoke during the hearing on January 8, 2008. I find that Defendants' Motion to Clarify is well-taken based upon the entire record and the recording of the January 8, 2008 hearing.
Accordingly, I will GRANT Defendants' Motion to Clarify and hereby ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that Defendants shall respond only to interrogatory nos. 1, 5 and 6, and request for production nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7.