Filed: May 10, 2016
Latest Update: May 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT BREGMAN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS TO PRODUCE AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT LOERA STEPHAN M. VIDMAR , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Bregman's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion") [Doc. 377], filed February 19, 2016. Defendant Bregman filed a Notice of Errata [Doc. 434] on March 13, 2016, that contained two additional exhibits. [Docs. 434-1, 434-2]. Plaintiffs responded on April 15, 2016. [D
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT BREGMAN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS TO PRODUCE AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT LOERA STEPHAN M. VIDMAR , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Bregman's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion") [Doc. 377], filed February 19, 2016. Defendant Bregman filed a Notice of Errata [Doc. 434] on March 13, 2016, that contained two additional exhibits. [Docs. 434-1, 434-2]. Plaintiffs responded on April 15, 2016. [Do..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT BREGMAN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS TO PRODUCE AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT LOERA
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Bregman's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion") [Doc. 377], filed February 19, 2016. Defendant Bregman filed a Notice of Errata [Doc. 434] on March 13, 2016, that contained two additional exhibits. [Docs. 434-1, 434-2]. Plaintiffs responded on April 15, 2016. [Doc. 436]. Defendant Bregman replied on April 29, 2016. [Doc. 456]. The Court heard oral argument on May 9, 2016, has reviewed the relevant documents and law, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, Defendant Bregman's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Additionally, Plaintiffs will be compelled to produce their agreement with Defendant Loera regarding his default.
Discussion
Plaintiffs are required to take the following actions with regard to Defendant Bregman's first and second sets of discovery requests.
First Set of Discovery Requests
Request for Action required by Plaintiffs
Admission
1-122 None.
Interrogatory Action required by Plaintiffs
1 None.
2 None.
Request for Action required by Plaintiffs
Production
1 None.
Second Set of Discovery Requests
Request for Action required by Plaintiffs
Admission
1-6 None.
Interrogatory Action required by Plaintiffs
1 If Plaintiffs have not provided all of the principal and/or material facts which
support the contention, they shall serve a supplemental answer on Defendant
Bregman by May 16, 2016.
2 None.
3 None.
4 If Plaintiffs have not provided all of the principal and/or material facts which
support the contention, they shall serve a supplemental answer on Defendant
Bregman by May 16, 2016.
5 If Plaintiffs have not provided all of the principal and/or material facts which
support the contention, they shall serve a supplemental answer on Defendant
Bregman by May 16, 2016.
6 If Plaintiffs have not provided all of the principal and/or material facts which
support the contention, they shall serve a supplemental answer on Defendant
Bregman by May 16, 2016.
7 If Defendant Loera has provided any documents to Plaintiffs' counsel that
have not already been produced in discovery, then Plaintiffs shall serve a
supplemental answer to Interrogatory #7 by May 16, 2016.
Plaintiffs shall submit unredacted, Bates-stamped copies of the disputed
documents to the Court by May 16, 2016. The Court will review them in
camera to determine if they are relevant to any material issue in this lawsuit.
8 If Plaintiffs have not provided all of the principal and/or material facts which
support the contention, they shall serve a supplemental answer on Defendant
Bregman by May 16, 2016.
Request for Action required by Plaintiffs
Production
1 If Defendant Loera has produced to Plaintiffs' counsel any documents that
have not been produced through discovery, those documents must be
produced, consistent with the Court's prior rulings, no later than May 16,
2016.
2 By May 16, 2016, Plaintiffs shall serve a supplemental response stating
whether they have withheld any responsive non-privileged, non-work product
document that has not already been produced in discovery. If they have
withheld such documents, they must produce copies of the documents with
the supplemental response.
3 By May 16, 2016, Plaintiffs shall serve a supplemental response stating
whether they have withheld any responsive non-privileged, non-work product
document that has not already been produced in discovery. If they have
withheld such documents, they must produce copies of the documents with
the supplemental response.
4 None.
5 None.
Finally, Plaintiffs are ordered to produce a copy of the agreement regarding Defendant Loera's default that was referenced at the hearing to all Defendants by May 13, 2016.
Because the Motion is granted in part and denied in part, the Court declines to apportion expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). Each side will bear its own fees and costs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant Bregman's Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. 377] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
