Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02819/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02819-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMIKO OLABINTAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS,

INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-2819 CRB (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF JUNE

22, 2006

(Docket No. 57)

Pursuant to the Court’s order of June 16, 2006, the parties filed a joint letter on June 22,

2006, updating the Court on their discovery disputes. According to the letter, the only dispute

remaining concerns Shurgard’s revised RFA related to the Labor Commission transcript. 

The Court hereby GRANTS Shurgard’s request that Ms. Olabintan be compelled to respond

to the RFA as currently phrased. Ms. Olabintan’s testimony at the Labor Commission hearing may

have sufficient relevancy to the instant case and would not be burdensome to admit or deny. If Ms.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-02819-CRB Document 58 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Olabintan believes the portions of the transcript that are the subject matter of the RFA is inaccurate,

she can deny the admission. Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days from the date of this order to respond

to the RFA.

This order disposes of Docket No. 57.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02819-CRB Document 58 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2