Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01559/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01559-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOOT WINC, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RSM McGLADREY FINANCIAL

PROCESS OUTSOURCING, LLC, and

DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’

RESPECTIVE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

FURTHER ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES

The Court held a discovery teleconference on July 8, 2010. Alexander Conti, Esq., appeared

for Plaintiff. Anthony Durone, Esq., appeared for Defendant. The telephonic discovery hearing was

placed on the record. Accordingly, Judge McCurine’s oral rulings from the discovery hearing

are hereby incorporated fully herein. 

In addition, the Court further orders the following:

Plaintiff shall supplement its responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11, 12 and

13, no later than August 2, 2010. 

Defendant shall provide a revised Interrogatory Request No. 13 to Plaintiff no later than

July 12, 2010. Defendant has failed to answer the following interrogatories with any factual detail.

Rather, defendant has given broad conclusory allegations instead of facts in response to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories. The answers do not give any specific factual detail. Defendant must supplement

its answers to those interrogatories: interrogatory interrogatories numbers 2,5,6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18,

Case 3:08-cv-01559-BTM-WMC Document 149 Filed 07/12/10 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 08cv1559 BTM (WMc)

21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Defendant must provide verified supplemental responses to the above

identified interrogatories order no later than August 16, 2010. Defendant does not have to

supplement it answers to interrogatories numbers 8, 9, 19. However, by its answer to these

interrogatories Defendant is asserting under penalty of perjury that the only factual basis in support

of the contentions identified in interrogatories numbers 8, 9 and 19 are fully set forth in its answers

to these interrogatories.

Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs in connection with their respective

motions to compel further answers to interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2010

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01559-BTM-WMC Document 149 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2