ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 108, came on regularly for hearing on August 13, 2015. Joseph Jaramillo appeared for plaintiff. Lindbergh Porter appeared for defendant. Upon review of the documents in support, no opposition having been filed, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, upon review of the joint statement regarding discovery disagreement, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Defendant's initial response to plaintiff's interrogatory number 19 is fully responsive to that request. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied insofar as it seeks to compel defendant to provide a further response to interrogatory number 19.

2. Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted with regard to its request for an order directing defendant to identify and provide an appropriate witness for continued deposition as to topics 1-4, 7-8, and 11 set forth in plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.'s Agent Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendant is directed to identify and provide an appropriate witness for deposition as to these topics by no later than September 15, 2015. If defendant believes in good faith that it cannot comply with this order by the above date, then it may request an extension upon a showing of good cause for why it could not identify and provide an appropriate witness for deposition before the ordered deadline and that it has obtained a further extension of the discovery deadline from the assigned District Judge for the limited purpose of taking such a deposition.

3. Counsel for both parties stated in the parties' joint statement and on the record at the hearing on this matter that they have resolved their disputes relating to plaintiff's request for production number 68 and deposition topic number 5. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion as to these items of discovery is denied as moot.