MILTON v. REGENCY PARK APARTMENTS, 2:13-cv-1284 KJM CKD. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140530a50
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 29, 2014
Latest Update: May 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and production of documents came on regularly for hearing on May 28, 2014. Stuart Fagan appeared for plaintiffs. Mark Robertson appeared telephonically for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 21) is granted in
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and production of documents came on regularly for hearing on May 28, 2014. Stuart Fagan appeared for plaintiffs. Mark Robertson appeared telephonically for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 21) is granted in ..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and production of documents came on regularly for hearing on May 28, 2014. Stuart Fagan appeared for plaintiffs. Mark Robertson appeared telephonically for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 21) is granted in part. All further responses compelled by this order shall be limited to responding for each individual defendant and shall not include the definition of "you" and "yours" used by plaintiff in propounding the interrogatories and document requests. All discovery compelled by this order shall be produced subject to the stipulated protective order (ECF No. 25). Further responses and production of documents1 shall be made, as set forth below, no later than June 11, 2014.
2. Further responses to the interrogatories are compelled as follows:
No. 1: granted, limited to 2012 to the present;
No. 2: granted, net worth statement only;
No. 3: granted, limited to claims of housing discrimination against individual
defendants since 2009;
Nos. 4-6: inspection/copying of files maintained at the Regency Park Apartments is allowed;
No. 7: denied;
Nos. 8, 14-17: inspection/copying of files maintained at the Regency Park Apartments is allowed;
Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13: granted, limited solely to the Regency Park Apartments since 2009;
No. 11: denied;
No. 18 (served on defendant Regency Park and Joseph Camacho): denied;
Nos. 18, 23, 24: denied.
3. Further production of documents is compelled as follows:
Nos. 1, 2, 5, 49: denied;
Nos. 3, 4, 6: denied;
Nos. 7-14, 16, 18-28, 31-35, 44-48, 51-58, 61, 67-72: inspection/copying of files
maintained at the Regency Park Apartments is allowed;
Nos. 29, 30: granted, limited to claims of housing discrimination against individual defendants since 2009;
Nos. 36-40: denied, without prejudice to issuance by plaintiff of a subpoena duces tecum at trial should the trial court allow in evidence of defendants' net worth for the punitive damages claim;
Nos. 41-43: denied;
No. 71: denied;
Nos. 59, 60: granted, limited to correspondence between defendants and California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing from 2009 to present.
4. The court declines to make an award of expenses incurred in connection with the motion.
FootNotes
1. Some of the responsive documents are maintained at the business office of the defendant apartment complex. Plaintiff's counsel indicated at the hearing that a copy service will be sent to copy all the documents maintained at the office.
Source: Leagle
