Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00391-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYLOR GAMINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00391-SAB

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ORDER COMPELLING 

PRODUCTION

ORDER WITHDRAWING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND 

VACATING HEARING

(ECF Nos. 40, 41, 43, 45, 46)

Currently before the Court is a discovery dispute between the parties that was the subject 

of an informal hearing held on February 27, 2020. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on March 22, 2018, and is proceeding on a third amended 

complaint filed on June 6, 2019. (ECF Nos. 1, 38.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants discriminated 

against Plaintiff by denying him disability accommodations, retaliating against him for 

complaining about being discriminated against, and by not preventing discrimination based on 

his disability. (Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) 1, ECF No. 38.) Due to a disability, Plaintiff was to 

receive accommodations including the ability to take exams at the Disabled Student Program 

Services (“DSPS”) at the college he was attending. (TAC 2.) Plaintiff alleges two professors, 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

one being Defendant John Peterson (“Peterson” or “Professor Peterson”), denied full use of such 

accommodation and subjected Plaintiff to retaliation while Plaintiff was a student. (TAC 3-4.) 

The other professor, Elda Bautista (“Bautista” or “Professor Bautista”), was terminated as a 

defendant in this action on August 17, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) The third amended complaint 

names Defendant Yosemite Community College District (“District”), and Defendant Peterson. 

(TAC 1-2.) 

The non-expert discovery cutoff is March 23, 2020, and the action is set for trial on 

October 27, 2020. (ECF No. 26.) On February 21, 2020, at the parties’ request, the Court 

scheduled an informal hearing to be held on February 27, 2020, to discuss a discovery dispute. 

(ECF No. 41.) On February 25, 2020, the parties filed a joint informal discovery dispute letter 

brief outlining the contentions of the parties regarding the dispute. (Joint Informal Discovery 

Dispute Letter Brief (“Br.”), ECF No. 43.) On February 27, 2020, the Court held the informal 

hearing via telephonic conference call with the parties. (ECF No. 45.) Jane Brunner appeared 

on behalf of Plaintiff, and Kellie Murphy appeared on behalf of Defendants. (Id.) 

On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff served a request for production of documents set one 

(“RFP”). (Br. 1.) Defendant District provided responses, and on October 3, 2019, Plaintiff’s 

counsel began to meet and confer regarding the responses by sending an initial correspondence 

outlining what counsel believed to be deficiencies in the District’s responses. (Br. 1.) Counsel 

engaged in several telephonic conferences thereafter, and the District served supplemental 

responses, supplemental documents, amended supplemental responses, and revised privilege logs 

in order to address the issues raised by Plaintiff. (Id.) Two issues remain unresolved regarding 

the responses to the requests for production, both of which involve privacy rights of parties and 

non-parties, and are the subject of the current dispute before the Court. (Id.) 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the undersigned’s procedures for informal discovery dispute resolution, the 

parties may stipulate to allow for the resolution of discovery disputes outside of the formal Local 

Rule 251 procedures by conducting an informal telephonic conference. Prior to conducting such 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

conference, the parties must agree to the informal process, agree to an entry of an order by the 

Court after the conference, and agree to abide by such order. 

Rule 26 provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable. Id. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact 

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides that a party may serve upon any 

other party a request for production of any tangible thing within the party’s possession, custody, 

and control that is within the scope of Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(B). The party receiving 

the request has thirty days in which to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). A party may move for 

an order compelling production where the opposing party fails to produce documents as 

requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3(B)(iv). 

“Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be 

raised in response to discovery requests. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. 

Cal. 1995). Unlike a privilege, the right of privacy is not an absolute bar to discovery and courts 

must balance the need for the information against the claimed privacy right. Ragge v. 

MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (“Even if the requested 

documents in defendants’ personnel files are protected by defendants’ privacy right, that right 

may, nevertheless, be invaded for litigation purposes.”); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616 (“Resolution of 

a privacy objection or request for a protective order requires a balancing of the need for the 

information sought against the privacy right asserted.”) “[E]ven where the balance weighs in 

favor of disclosure of private information, the scope of disclosure will be narrowly 

circumscribed; such an invasion of the right of privacy must be drawn with narrow specificity 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

and is permitted only to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Cook v. 

Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 552 (E.D. Cal. 1990); Estate of Sanchez v. Cty. of 

Stanislaus, No. 118CV00977DADBAM, 2019 WL 1959579, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)

(same). 

The District acknowledges that the California state court case it cites to, El Dorado Sav. 

& Loan Assn. v. Superior Court, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342, 346 (Ct. App. 1987), has been 

disapproved of by Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 398 P.3d 69 (2017). El Dorado

applied the standard that in discovery directed at confidential information in personnel files, even 

when directly relevant to the litigation, such discovery will not be permitted until a balancing of 

the “compelling need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy,” and determination 

that disclosure is appropriate. El Dorado, 190 Cal. App. 3d at 346. In Williams, the California 

Supreme Court held that the compelling need standard is not the starting point for balancing

general privacy rights against the need for discovery: 

But the flaw in the Court of Appeal’s legal analysis, and in the cases it relied 

upon, is the de facto starting assumption that such an egregious invasion is 

involved in every request for discovery of private information. Courts must 

instead place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its 

extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing 

must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies, as Hill

requires. What suffices to justify an invasion will, as Marshalls recognizes, vary 

according to the context. Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental to 

personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest. [citation] To the 

extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information to 

always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to the 

other considerations articulated in [Hill], they are disapproved.

Williams, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 557, 398 P.3d 69, 87 (2017); see also Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic 

Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 34, 865 P.2d 633, 653 (1994) (“Where the case involves an obvious invasion 

of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy, e.g., freedom from involuntary sterilization or 

the freedom to pursue consensual familial relationships, a ‘compelling interest’ must be present 

to overcome the vital privacy interest [however,] [i]f, in contrast, the privacy interest is less 

central, or in bona fide dispute, general balancing tests are employed.”). 

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

III.

DISCUSSION

The discovery dispute involves Defendant District’s responses to certain requests for 

production. The requests can be grouped into two different categories, one relating to requests 

for documents pertaining to complaints by students against Professor Bautista and Professor 

Peterson, and one relating to the investigation by the District into the specific incidents alleged 

by Plaintiff in his complaint. The Court first turns to the requests pertaining to the complaints. 

A. Complaints against Professor Bautista and Professor Peterson (RFP 11 & 15)

Plaintiff’s RFP 11 seeks “all DOCUMENTS REGARDING ANY complaints involving 

Professor Bautista from 2006 to present. (Id.) Plaintiff’s RFP 15 seeks “all DOCUMENTS, 

whether administrative, in state or federal court, informal or internal complaints or charges 

RELATING OR REFERRING TO Professor Peterson.” (Id.) Through meet and confer, 

Plaintiff now seeks “all complaints, formal or informal, made in writing to an administrator of 

the District by a student regarding how they were treated by either of these professors.” (Br. 1-

2.) 

1. Defendant District’s Position Regarding RFP 11 & 15

The District argues the requests are overbroad in scope and time, and not relevant or 

proportional to Plaintiff’s claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, and invasion of 

privacy. (Br. 2.) The District emphasizes it is obligated to protect the various privacy rights at 

issue and cannot produce the documents absent a court order. (Id.) The District notes that 

complaints against employees are subject to the employee’s and the complaining parties’ privacy 

rights, Tumbling v. Merced Irr. Dist., 262 F.R.D. 509, 517 (E.D. Cal. 2009); El Dorado, 190 Cal. 

App. 3d at 343. (Br. 2.) The District argues both professors have a fundamental right to privacy 

in the information sought, and Plaintiff has failed to identify any need for information regarding 

complaints against the professors, especially within such a broad scope and absent a reasonable 

time restriction. Should the Court order production of prior complaints, the District “suggests 

that the Court order production only of those complaints of the same type Plaintiff alleges in this 

action, specifically complaints regarding denial of or failure to accommodate a student, 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

discrimination or retaliation based on disability, and violation of privacy rights regarding 

disability or medical condition,” a limitation previously proposed and rejected by Plaintiff. (Id.) 

The District further argues the requests should be limited to formal complaints made through the 

District’s internal complaint procedures, and that the request should be limited to complaints 

lodged between 2014 and 2016, the two-year period prior to Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the 

professors. (Id.) 

2. Plaintiff’s Position Regarding RFP 11 & 15

Plaintiff is willing to narrow these requests to any student who filed a written informal or 

formal complaint regarding being retaliated or discriminated against, or who had private 

information disclosed by either Professors Bautista or Professor Peterson from March 2007 until 

April 2017. 

3. The Court’s Ruling on RFP 11 & 15

Even under Plaintiff’s proposed narrowed version, the Court finds these requests to be 

overbroad temporally and substantively. The requests seek information not relevant to Plaintiff’s 

claims in this action. See Tumbling, 262 F.R.D. at 517 (granting request for protective order 

limiting request for the entire personnel files to be overbroad, and noting that defendant had 

acknowledged certain items in the files were relevant and had already produced such items). 

Plaintiff’s request to compel production of documents responsive to RFP 11 shall be 

denied. Professor Bautista is no longer a defendant in this action. While documents relating to 

the District’s response and investigation of the precise alleged incident(s) between Professor 

Bautista and Plaintiff may be relevant to the remaining claims against Defendant District, nonrelated complaints filed by other students against Professor Bautista are not relevant to the claims 

in the action against the District or Defendant Peterson. To the extent complaints filed by other 

students are relevant because they relate to the investigation conducted by the District 

concerning Plaintiff’s allegations against Professor Bautista, they would fall under the requests 

for production relating to the investigation, which the Court addresses further below. RFP 11 

seeking complaints against Professor Bautista is not directed at relevant information and is not 

proportional to the needs of Plaintiff in addressing the remaining claims against Defendant 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

District or Defendant Peterson, and thus Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling further 

responses to RFP shall be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

As for RFP 15 pertaining to Professor Peterson, the Court finds the request to be overly 

broad in that it requests documents for any type of alleged discrimination from any time period. 

Such an expansive request is not proportional to the needs of Plaintiff in addressing the claims in 

this action, however information regarding complaints similar to the type of claims asserted by 

Plaintiff here are relevant, and the Court shall narrow the substantive scope of the request

accordingly. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Cook, 132 F.R.D. at 552; Estate of Sanchez, 2019 WL 

1959579, at *5. Plaintiff’s proposed narrowing of the time period to a ten-year period is still

overbroad, and the Court shall also limit the temporal scope of RFP 15 to the five-year period 

preceding the incident in question. See Tumbling, 262 F.R.D. at 515 (limiting temporal scope of 

request for production). Plaintiff also argued at the hearing that the time period should continue 

after the date of the incident to determine how the school has been handling similar incidents 

since, however, as conceded at the hearing, such future incidents are not directly relevant to the 

claims in this action, and such proposal is denied. 

Lastly, the entering of the protective order in this action also lessens the impact of the 

invasion of privacy in balancing the need for discovery here.1 See, e.g., Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617 

(“In applying the balancing analysis to the personnel files sought by Plaintiff in the case at bar, it 

is clear that Plaintiff’s need for the documents will outweigh any invasion of Defendants’

privacy rights, particularly under the limitations of a carefully crafted protective order.”); Grinzi 

v. Barnes, No. C 04-1655 PVT, 2004 WL 2370639, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2004) (“The proper 

mechanism for an employer to use to protect an employee’s privacy interest in his personnel file 

is to obtain, either by stipulation or motion, a properly crafted protective order under Rule 

26(c).”); Martinez Patterson v. AT&T Servs. Inc., No. C18-1180 RSM, 2019 WL 5294532, at *3 

(W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2019) (“To the extent that production of the personnel files of these 

1

 Prior to the filing of the joint letter brief and the holding of the informal discovery dispute conference, on 

February 25, 2020, the parties filed a stipulated protective order. (ECF No. 42.) At the conference, the parties 

confirmed that the protective order was applicable and directed to the documents at issue pertaining to these 

requests. Following the conference, on February 27, 2020, the Court approved and entered the stipulated protective 

order covering this action. (ECF No. 44.) 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

employees encroaches on the employees’ privacy interests, AT&T has failed to explain why the 

current Protective Order, Dkt. #19, inadequately protects these privacy interests.”). 

Based on the balancing of the need for the discovery and the privacy rights at issue, the 

Court shall order Defendant District to provide further responses to RFP 15, narrowed 

temporally and substantively as follows: All non-privileged documents relating or referring to 

formal or informal complaints against Professor Peterson from within the five-year time period 

preceding September 14, 2016 (the date of the relevant incident involving Professor Peterson), 

involving allegations of disability discrimination by Professor Peterson against students, or 

involving allegations of retaliation or invasion of privacy, generally, by Professor Peterson 

against students. 

B. Investigation Documents (RFP 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, & 19) 

Plaintiff’s RFP 16, 17, 18, & 19, seek all documents relating or referring to the 

investigation conducted by the District into the incidents alleged in Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and 

Plaintiff’s RFP 3,2 & 13, request all documents relating to meetings with the two involved 

professors regarding the investigation. (Br. 3.) 

1. Defendant District’s Position Regarding RFP 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, & 19

The District argues that the investigation documents related to the alleged incidents are 

similarly subject to the employee’s privacy rights like the requests discussed above, because the 

investigation involved inquiries into the employees and discussion of handling of the complaints 

against the professors, including possible disciplinary action. (Br. 3.) 

2. Plaintiff’s Position Regarding RFP 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, & 19

Here, Plaintiff emphasizes the facts of the complaint’s allegations. Plaintiff was qualified 

to take his tests through the DSPS. On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff alleges Professor Bautista 

stated in front of the class in a loud voice that it was unfair to other students that Plaintiff could 

2

 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s previously filed motion to compel further responses still pending as of the holding 

of the informal discovery dispute conference (ECF No. 40), corresponds precisely with the same RFP at issue here, 

except the motion refers to a RFP 8, instead of 3, while the joint letter brief refers to RFP 3 instead of 8. Given the 

motion to compel reproduces the request and response verbatim for RFP 8, the Court assumes the dispute in fact 

involves RFP 8 and not 3. (ECF No. 40-1 at 10.) However, herein the Court will adjudicate the dispute as to RFP 3 

as that is what the letter brief refers to and is the document jointly filed by the parties for this informal dispute 

resolution process. The Court presumes the parties will apply this ruling to the relevant RFP in either regard. 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

take a test after the rest of the class. (Id.) In Professor Peterson’s auto shop class, on September 

14, 2016, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Peterson questioned Plaintiff about his disability in front of 

the class. (Id.) Plaintiff complained to the school administration, and the next day, Defendant 

Peterson displayed the email complaint on the projector for the class to read. (Id.) On March 20, 

2017, Plaintiff filed a formal discrimination complaint, and alleges Defendant District did not 

complete a formal investigation of the complaint regarding Peterson or Bautista. (Id.) 

Plaintiff argues that while there is a constitutionally based right of privacy that can be 

asserted in response to a discovery request, the right is not a privilege or absolute bar, and is 

subject to balancing the need against the claimed right, Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616; Lind v. United 

States, No. CIV 13-032-TUC-CKJ, 2014 WL 2930486, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 30, 2014); Ragge, 

165 F.R.D. at 604. (Br. 3-4.) Plaintiff emphasizes that he was forced out of the college because 

he was not provided with appropriate testing accommodations; he was humiliated in front of the 

students by his professors; Defendant District did not respond appropriately to Plaintiff’s formal 

complaint; the college responded with an inadequate informal investigation instead, neither 

following the law nor its own procedures; and the Plaintiff has no documentation regarding these 

investigations. (Br. 4.) Plaintiff argues that where a plaintiff has statutory discrimination claims, 

as well as common law causes of action, they are in a stronger position to obtain information 

otherwise protected by privacy rights, and the strong public interest in effective enforcement of 

anti-discrimination statutes often outweighs competing privacy interests, particularly in a federal 

forum, Univ. of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182 (1990); Olympic Club v. Superior 

Court, 229 Cal. App. 3d 358, 365, 282 Cal. Rptr. 1 (Ct. App. 1991). (Br. 4.) 

Plaintiff finally states that in balancing the need of Plaintiff and the privacy of the 

individuals involved, the need for information far outweighs the privacy right asserted, 

particularly since the parties have entered into a protective order to protect the privacy rights of 

the individuals involved. (Br. 4.) 

3. The Court’s Ruling on RFP 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, & 19

In the letter brief, the parties did not set forth the text of RFP 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, or 19. 

These RFP are described as requesting all documents relating to the investigation conducted by 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

the District into the incidents alleged in Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and all documents relating to 

meetings with Professors Peterson and Bautista regarding the District’s investigation. 

It is clear that the documents relating to the investigation of Defendant Peterson are 

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against both Defendant Peterson and Defendant District. While 

above the Court found that RFP 11 pertaining to Professor Bautista sought irrelevant documents 

because Professor Bautista is no longer a defendant in this action, the documents relating to the 

investigation by Defendant District into Professor Bautista are relevant to the remaining claims 

against Defendant District, and as acknowledged by the District at the informal conference, the 

investigation between the two professors had overlapping aspects. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal 

Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (“Even if the requested documents in defendants’

personnel files are protected by defendants’ privacy right, that right may, nevertheless, be 

invaded for litigation purposes.”); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. The entering of the protective order 

in this action also lessens the impact of the invasion of privacy in balancing the need for 

discovery here. See, e.g., Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617; Grinzi, 2004 WL 2370639, at *1; Martinez, 

2019 WL 5294532, at *3. 

Accordingly, Defendant District shall produce non-privileged documents responsive to 

RFP 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19.

3

 

IV.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses to Request for Production number 

11 is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses to Request for Production number 

15 is GRANTED subject to the following narrowing of the request: all nonprivileged documents relating or referring to formal or informal complaints 

against Professor Peterson from within the five-year time period preceding 

3

 Again, the aspects of each of the individual requests were not raised or discussed by the parties in briefing, but to 

the extent each requests only encompass documents referring or relating to the investigation conducted by the 

District, Defendant shall be required to produce such documents to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

September 14, 2016 (the date of the relevant incident involving Professor 

Peterson), involving allegations of disability discrimination by Professor Peterson 

against students, or involving allegations of retaliation or invasion of privacy, 

generally, by Professor Peterson against students;

3. Defendant District shall serve further responses and provide documents 

responsive to Request for Production number 15, as narrowed by the Court,

within thirty (30) days of entry of this order; 

4. Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses to Requests for Production 

numbers 3,413, 16, 17, 18, and 19, is GRANTED; 

5. Defendant District shall serve further responses and provide documents 

responsive to Requests for Production numbers 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19, within 

thirty (30) days of entry of this order;

6. Plaintiff’s motion to compel to compel further responses (ECF No. 40) is 

WITHDRAWN5; and 

7. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses set for March 4, 

2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

 As discussed above, the Court assumes the parties in fact meant to refer to RFP 8 rather than 3. 

5

 Following the discovery conference, on February 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel further responses. (ECF No. 46.) 

Case 1:18-cv-00391-SAB Document 47 Filed 02/28/20 Page 11 of 11