Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01187-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD STAFFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1187-KJM-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 108, came on regularly for hearing on 

August 13, 2015. Joseph Jaramillo appeared for plaintiff. Lindbergh Porter appeared for 

defendant. Upon review of the documents in support, no opposition having been filed, upon 

hearing the arguments of counsel, upon review of the joint statement regarding discovery 

disagreement, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS 

FOLLOWS:

1. Defendant’s initial response to plaintiff’s interrogatory number 19 is fully 

responsive to that request. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied insofar as it seeks 

to compel defendant to provide a further response to interrogatory number 19.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with regard to its request for an order 

directing defendant to identify and provide an appropriate witness for continued deposition as to 

topics 1-4, 7-8, and 11 set forth in plaintiff’s Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant 

Case 2:13-cv-01187-KJM-CKD Document 116 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.’s Agent Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendant is directed to 

identify and provide an appropriate witness for deposition as to these topics by no later than 

September 15, 2015. If defendant believes in good faith that it cannot comply with this order by 

the above date, then it may request an extension upon a showing of good cause for why it could 

not identify and provide an appropriate witness for deposition before the ordered deadline and 

that it has obtained a further extension of the discovery deadline from the assigned District Judge 

for the limited purpose of taking such a deposition.

3. Counsel for both parties stated in the parties’ joint statement and on the record at 

the hearing on this matter that they have resolved their disputes relating to plaintiff’s request for 

production number 68 and deposition topic number 5. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to these 

items of discovery is denied as moot.

Dated: August 13, 2015

11.staff1187.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01187-KJM-CKD Document 116 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2