Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. EX REL. BAILEY v. GATAN, INC., 2:12-cv-0106 MCE CKD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140707f66 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Defendants' motion to compel came on regularly for hearing. Collen Kennedy appeared for plaintiff United States of America with Kelley Hauser appearing telephonically. Larry Raskin appeared for plaintiff State of California. Daniel Bartley appeared for relators. 1 Nicolas Kelsey appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition and in camera review of the submitted documents, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, an
More

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants' motion to compel came on regularly for hearing. Collen Kennedy appeared for plaintiff United States of America with Kelley Hauser appearing telephonically. Larry Raskin appeared for plaintiff State of California. Daniel Bartley appeared for relators.1 Nicolas Kelsey appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition and in camera review of the submitted documents, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The motion to compel further production of documents (ECF No. 48) is granted in part. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, relators shall produce for inspection and copying the documents submitted for in camera review. The remainder of the motion to compel further production of documents is denied.

2. The motion to compel further responses to interrogatories is granted in part:

a. Within fourteen days, relator Wade shall provide further responses to nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10; relator Bailey shall provide further responses to nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11. If relators have no personal knowledge of facts responsive to a specific interrogatory, then they should so state in the further response.

b. The remainder of the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories is denied.

3. The court finds that in the circumstances of this case, an award of expenses is not warranted.

FootNotes


1. At the hearing, relator's counsel submitted for in camera review Relators' Confidential Disclosure Statement and Agreement Regarding Common Interest and Disclosure of Information.
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