Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05216/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05216-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ABE L. CHAVEZ PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5216

ARVEST BANK GROUP, INC. DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 29th day of August, 2005, comes on for

consideration plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and to Extend

Discovery Deadline (doc. 21) and from the motion, defendant’s

response thereto, and all other matters of relevance before it,

the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders

as follows:

1. The plaintiff served Interrogatories and Requests for

Production of Documents, Set I, upon defendant on May 19, 2005.

The defendant responded to plaintiff’s discovery on June 28, 2005,

and supplemented its answers to plaintiff’s discovery on July 29,

2005. 

The plaintiff now seeks an order of this Court compelling the

defendant to respond more fully to Interrogatories 7, 9, 11, 12,

and 13 and Requests for Production of Documents 5 and 7.

Additionally, the plaintiff seeks a ten (10) day extension of the

discovery deadline from the date defendant is ordered to fully

respond to its discovery so that plaintiff will have the

opportunity to depose witnesses, if necessary, about the discovery

Case 5:04-cv-05216-JLH Document 25 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

responses. 

The defendant opposes the plaintiff’s motion to compel, and

argues that, beyond the extent previously answered by the

defendant, the information sought by the interrogatories and

requests for production at issue is not relevant and is overbroad,

burdensome and violative of the privacy rights of persons who are

not parties to this lawsuit. 

2. With respect to Interrogatories 7 and 9 and Requests for

Production of Documents 5 and 7, the defendant has responded,

limiting its response to defendant’s Springdale locations. The

Court finds that defendant’s response is sufficient and that to

require a more expansive response would be overly broad.

3. With respect to Interrogatories 11, 12, and 13, the

Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to discover the

information requested, as limited by the interrogatories to the

defendant’s Springdale locations, and the defendant should be,

and hereby is, ordered to produce such information within ten (10)

days of the date of this order. 

4. Finally, the Court finds that both the discovery and

dispositive motion deadlines should be, and hereby are, extended

to and until September 19, 2005. 

 IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05216-JLH Document 25 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Case 5:04-cv-05216-JLH Document 25 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>