Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LUKE v. HOSPITAL SHARED SERVICES, 10-cv-03087-WJM-BNB. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20120118a55 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge. This matter arises on Defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. # 36, filed 11/7/2011]. The Motion to Compel seeks two things: (1) production of documents bearing certain Bates numbers which appear to be responsive to discovery responses compelled by my Order [31]; and (2) execution by the plaintiff of a release form so that the defendant may obtain a claim file from the Colorado Division of Workers' Compensation. The plaintiff does not meaningfully respond
More

ORDER

BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.

This matter arises on Defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. # 36, filed 11/7/2011]. The Motion to Compel seeks two things: (1) production of documents bearing certain Bates numbers which appear to be responsive to discovery responses compelled by my Order [31]; and (2) execution by the plaintiff of a release form so that the defendant may obtain a claim file from the Colorado Division of Workers' Compensation.

The plaintiff does not meaningfully respond to the Motion to Compel insofar as it seeks production of documents bearing Bates numbers 105, 106, 123, 128, and 129, stating instead that "[t]hey have been or will be produced (or the reason for their omission will be determined)." Response [Doc. # 45] at ¶6. The Motion to Compel is granted to require the production of the identified documents.

This case involves claims of discrimination based on age, sex, race, and ethnic heritage and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. No claim is made based on disability or stemming from an injury in the workplace. Consequently, I agree with the plaintiff that the relevance of the worker's compensation claim file is not apparent, and no showing of relevance has been made by the defendant. Consequently, the Motion to Compel is denied insofar as it seeks the execution of a release of the worker's compensation claim file.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel [Doc. # 36] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

• GRANTED to require the plaintiff to produce the documents bearing Bates numbers 105, 106, 123, 128, and 129. The documents shall be produced to the defendant at the offices of its counsel on or before January 24, 2012; and

• DENIED insofar as it seeks to require the plaintiff to execute a release of her worker's compensation claim file.

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