SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's informal discovery dispute practice, the parties contacted the Court and requested an informal discovery dispute conference to assist them with resolving a dispute regarding written discovery propounded by Plaintiffs Yvette C. Bommarito ("Bommarito") and Jennifer Peck ("Peck") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on Defendant Home Depot ("Defendant"). On August 14, 2015, the parties appeared telephonically for an informal discovery dispute conference. John Briscoe, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Brian Chun, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant.
As a preliminary matter, the parties are reminded that the purpose of discovery is to make trial "less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible," United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:
"Although [discovery] does have its boundaries, the scope of discovery is broadly construed." Babbitt, et al. v. Albertson's Inc., 1992 WL 605652 *5 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). Where a party objects to the scope of a request, that part resisting discovery "has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections." Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
Based upon the parties' submissions and arguments presented at the informal discovery dispute conference, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. As to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, the parties SHALL meet and confer in good faith, either in person or by telephone, by no later than August 17, 2015, to narrow the breadth of the disputed document requests, as follows:
2. As to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant shall provide information regarding lawsuits for discrimination on the basis of disability or age, retaliation for taking medical or family leave, or failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation, filed within the last ten years against:
3. As to Plaintiff's Interrogatory 5, the Court has not reviewed all interrogatories propounded upon Defendant. However, to the extent the interrogatories are divided into discrete subparts exceeding the numerical limit on interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant's objection to answering any interrogatory outside that limit is sustained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.