Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02926/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02926-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizens Telecom Services Co.
Defendant
Frontier Communications Corporation
Defendant
Kevin Mailloux
Defendant
Phyllis Whitten
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 

Firmwide:125843782.1 064194.1023 Case No. 2:12−CV−02926−TLN−EFB

[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

MARGARET HART EDWARDS, Bar No. 65699

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

650 California Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 

Telephone: 415.433.1940 

ADRIANNE B. OSTROWSKI, Bar No. 238786

BARBARA A. BLACKBURN, Bar No. 253731 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: 916.830.7200 

Attorneys for Defendants 

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION, CITIZENS TELECOM 

SERVICES COMPANY, L.L.C., AND KEVIN 

MAILLOUX 

GEORGE DUESDIEKER 

LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE DUEDIEKER 

405 El Camino Real #107 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Telephone: (650) 566-9529 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

PHYLLIS WHITTEN 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PHYLLIS WHITTEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 

CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES CO., 

KEVIN MAILLOUX, and Doe 1 through 

Doe 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:12−CV−02926−TLN−EFB

[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING 

ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

Case 2:12-cv-02926-TLN-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/14/14 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 

Firmwide:125843782.1 064194.1023 2. Case No. 2:12−CV−02926−TLN−EFB

[PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

This matter came before the Court on February 26, 2014 with respect to three discovery disputes. 

(Dockets 22 & 23). Barbara A. Blackburn, Littler Mendelson, P.C. appeared on behalf of Defendant Frontier 

Communications Corporation (“Frontier”), George Duesdieker appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Based on 

the pleadings in the file and the arguments of counsel, the Court rules as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories (salary 

information) is granted as to interrogatories 1, 2, 4 & 5, but denied as to interrogatory 3. Any answers will be 

subject to the parties’ stipulated protective order. Such interrogatory answers will be provided to Plaintiff no 

later than March 19, 2014. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion seeking a determination that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to 

her advice regarding use of the U.S. flag in Defendant Frontier’s marketing, is denied. 

3. Defendant Frontier’s motion to compel answers to its Special Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 5 is 

granted. Such interrogatory answers will be provided to Defendant no later than March 19, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 13, 2014. _____________________________________ 

HONORABLE EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

DATED: March 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. Blackburn 

Barbara A. Blackburn 

DATED: March 10, 2014 /s/ George Duesdieker (approved on 03/10/14)

George Duesdieker

Case 2:12-cv-02926-TLN-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 2