Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kang v. Credit Bureau Connection, Inc., 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191220b36 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: DISCOVERY SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Having considered the parties' letter briefs regarding their informal discovery dispute and heard argument of counsel at the informal discovery dispute conference held on December 19, 2019, the Court ORDERS the depositions of Defendant's employees Frank Larsen, David Daniel, and Leanne Cobb to take place on January 8, 2020, at 9:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as is mutually agreed-upon by the parties. Defendant is further ORDERED to
More

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Having considered the parties' letter briefs regarding their informal discovery dispute and heard argument of counsel at the informal discovery dispute conference held on December 19, 2019, the Court ORDERS the depositions of Defendant's employees Frank Larsen, David Daniel, and Leanne Cobb to take place on January 8, 2020, at 9:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as is mutually agreed-upon by the parties.

Defendant is further ORDERED to produce information responsive to Request for Production No. 7, subject to the parties' agreement regarding the confidentiality of that information. Defendant SHALL amend its discovery responses to indicate that it has no information or documents responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 7-10 and Request for Production Nos. 8-9 in its possession, custody, or control. To the extent any deponent reviews a document(s) in preparation for his or her deposition, the fact of such review will not be deemed to waive Defendant's response that such document(s) is not responsive to these discovery requests; however, Plaintiff remains free to seek such document(s) in discovery to the extent it contains relevant information.

The Court DEFERS ruling on whether the electronically stored information sought by Interrogatory Nos. 5-6 and Request for Production No. 7 is "not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost," Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), until after the deposition of Frank Larsen, Defendant's Chief Technology Officer, has been completed. Following the deposition, the parties SHALL meet and confer regarding the production of the electronically stored information. Should they be unable to agree, Defendant may file a motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B) and Local Rule 251.

Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), without prejudice to being renewed, if appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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