Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01549/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01549-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yvette C. Bommarito
Plaintiff
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Defendant
Jennifer Peck
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YVETTE C. BOMMARITO;

JENNIFER PEC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a corporation; 

and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01549-MCE-SKO

ORDER ON INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE CONFERENCE HELD ON 

AUGUST 14, 2015

(Doc. 18)

Pursuant to the Court’s informal discovery dispute practice, the parties contacted the Court 

and requested an informal discovery dispute conference to assist them with resolving a dispute 

regarding written discovery propounded by Plaintiffs Yvette C. Bommarito (“Bommarito”) and 

Jennifer Peck (“Peck”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on Defendant Home Depot (“Defendant”). On 

August 14, 2015, the parties appeared telephonically for an informal discovery dispute conference. 

John Briscoe, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Brian Chun, Esq., appeared on behalf of 

Defendant. 

As a preliminary matter, the parties are reminded that the purpose of discovery is to make 

trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts 

disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 

Case 1:14-cv-01549-MCE-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. 677, 683 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 

495, 501 (1947). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party's claim or defense-including the existence, description, nature, 

custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the 

identity and location of persons who know any discoverable matter. For good 

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. All evidence is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

“Although [discovery] does have its boundaries, the scope of discovery is broadly construed.” 

Babbitt, et al. v. Albertson’s Inc., 1992 WL 605652 *5 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Oppenheimer 

Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). Where a party objects to the scope of a request, that part 

resisting discovery “has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the 

burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 

179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

Based upon the parties’ submissions and arguments presented at the informal discovery 

dispute conference, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

1. As to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, the parties SHALL meet 

and confer in good faith, either in person or by telephone, by no later than August 17, 2015, to 

narrow the breadth of the disputed document requests, as follows: 

a. Plaintiff SHALL define which outstanding categories of pertinent and 

relevant information responsive to Plaintiffs’ document requests remain to be 

produced; and 

b. When responding, Defendant shall articulate specific objections and 

identify both the scope of documents which have been provided and the category of 

documents that have been excluded based on the stated objection;

2. As to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant shall provide information regarding 

lawsuits for discrimination on the basis of disability or age, retaliation for taking medical or family 

leave, or failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation, filed within the last ten years against:

Case 1:14-cv-01549-MCE-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

a. Gina Schievers, Dionna Terry, Kevin Baum; 

b. Any supervisor who directly supervised Plaintiff Bommarito between the 

date the alleged discriminatory conduct began in August of 2011 to the date of her 

termination; and

c. Any supervisor who directly supervised Plaintiff Peck between the date the 

alleged discriminatory conduct began in December of 2012 to the date of her 

termination; and

3. As to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 5, the Court has not reviewed all interrogatories 

propounded upon Defendant. However, to the extent the interrogatories are divided into discrete 

subparts exceeding the numerical limit on interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Defendant’s objection to answering any interrogatory outside that limit is sustained. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01549-MCE-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 3