Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DAVIS v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, 2:13-cv-2316 KJM CKD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141219894 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's motions to compel came on regularly for hearing on December 17, 2014. Raeon Roulston appeared telephonically for plaintiff. Sarah Schienhorn appeared telephonically for the Midland defendants. Erica Brachfeld appeared telephonically for the Brachfeld defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The motion to c
More

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff's motions to compel came on regularly for hearing on December 17, 2014. Raeon Roulston appeared telephonically for plaintiff. Sarah Schienhorn appeared telephonically for the Midland defendants. Erica Brachfeld appeared telephonically for the Brachfeld defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The motion to compel discovery from the Brachfeld defendants (ECF No. 47) is granted in part. No later than December 31, 2014:

a. Defendant Erica Brachfeld shall provide unredacted versions of the 21 documents previously produced, subject to the protective order previously entered in this action; provide a supplemental response to requests for production of documents nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23 stating that all documents responsive to these requests have been produced; and provide an unqualified admission or denial to request for admission no. 3.

2. The motion to compel discovery from the Midland defendants (ECF No. 46) is granted in part. No later than December 31, 2014, the Midland defendants shall:

a. Provide supplemental responses to interrogatories nos. 6 and 8 as agreed in the joint statement and to interrogatory no. 12, as limited by plaintiff in the joint statement;

b. Provide a supplemental response to requests for production of documents nos. 10, 11 and 26-31 stating that all documents responsive to these requests have been produced;

c. Provide a supplemental production to request for production nos. 12-23, as limited by plaintiff in the joint statement;

d. Provide an unqualified admission or denial requests for admission nos. 3 and 4;

e. Produce for in camera review in bate-stamped format the Purchase and Sale Agreement relevant to this action.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer