Guthmann v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc., 5:16-cv-02680-LHK (HRL). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170601c66
Filed: May 31, 2017
Latest Update: May 31, 2017
Summary: SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 2 HOWARD R. LLOYD , Magistrate Judge . In its May 10, 2017 Interim Order ("Interim Order") on Discovery Dispute Joint Report ("DDJR") #2, the court ordered defendants to file a new response to the 59 Requests for Production ("RFPs") indicating whether any responsive document has been withheld based on any objection, and, if so, explaining why the objection is well-founded. The defendants complied. For most of the RFPs, the defendant
Summary: SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 2 HOWARD R. LLOYD , Magistrate Judge . In its May 10, 2017 Interim Order ("Interim Order") on Discovery Dispute Joint Report ("DDJR") #2, the court ordered defendants to file a new response to the 59 Requests for Production ("RFPs") indicating whether any responsive document has been withheld based on any objection, and, if so, explaining why the objection is well-founded. The defendants complied. For most of the RFPs, the defendants..
More
SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 2
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
In its May 10, 2017 Interim Order ("Interim Order") on Discovery Dispute Joint Report ("DDJR") #2, the court ordered defendants to file a new response to the 59 Requests for Production ("RFPs") indicating whether any responsive document has been withheld based on any objection, and, if so, explaining why the objection is well-founded. The defendants complied. For most of the RFPs, the defendants represented they had produced everything responsive and held nothing back based on objections. However, for a few of the RFPs, defendants stated they were withholding responsive documents and explained the basis for their objections. The Interim Order gave plaintiff 5 days to file a response.
No response has been filed. The court does not know if that means the discovery dispute had been resolved, or not. Accordingly, within 5 days from the filing of this order, the parties shall submit a Supplemental DDJR #2 advising the court what issues, if any, remain for the court's consideration and giving each side's position on them. The court may then, if warranted, schedule a hearing.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
