The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 37 [SIC] TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOCKET NO. 60)
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37 [sic] to Compel Discovery (docket no. 60). The court has reviewed the motion and response thereto. In addition, the court has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court has also taken judicial notice of the court's file. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
Plaintiff seeks an order from this court compelling the Defendants to respond to eleven (11) separate discovery requests. However, in the body of the subject motion, Plaintiff challenges only two (2) of Defendants' responses. Plaintiff first argues that Defendants have not produced the personnel files of various individuals that were requested in Plaintiff's Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1. As to RFP No. 1, the court finds that the Defendants have now produced such personnel files to the Plaintiff following the parties entering into a protective order.
Next, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have not produced notes taken by a University attorney, Rosemary Augustine, concerning Plaintiff after he was terminated as requested in RFP No. 2. Here, the court finds that no notes exist from Rosemary Augustine concerning Plaintiff after he was terminated.
Accordingly, based upon these findings of fact and conclusion of law, the court ORDERS:
1. That Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37 [sic] to Compel Discovery (docket no. 60) is DENIED.
2. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion.
3. That the parties shall use the correct case number on all future filings with the court. The correct case number is 03-cv-02180-MJW-PAC
Done this 15th day of February 2006.
Michael J. Watanabe U.S. Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...