Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conair Corporation
Defendant
Delia Wilson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONAIR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

FOR MODIFICATION OF A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 74, 75, 77)

On October 8, 2015, this Court conducted an informal discovery dispute teleconference 

with the parties in this action. (ECF No. 72.) Following the conference, Plaintiff was ordered to 

provide Defendant with a “succinct description of the materials sought through discovery” on or 

before October 15, 2015. (ECF No. 73.) If the parties were unable to resolve the dispute,

Plaintiff was to request an informal telephonic conference on or before September 29, 2015. 

(ECF No. 73.) On September 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to modify the 

October 8, 2015 order. (ECF No. 74.) Defendant filed an opposition to the application on 

October 30, 2015. (ECF No. 75.) At the Court’s request, on November 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

response. (ECF No. 77.)

In the ex parte application, Plaintiff states that she provided Defendant with a “succinct 

description of the materials sought through discovery” in compliance with the Court’s order. 

Defendant replies that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order, but served further 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 78 Filed 11/06/15 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

discovery requests. Plaintiff responds that the discovery requests were the “succinct description 

of the materials sought through discovery.” 

The Court has reviewed the discovery requests propounded to Plaintiff and they do not 

comply with the order to provide Plaintiff with a “succinct description of the materials sought 

through discovery.” On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff served a fourth request for interrogatories 

containing one interrogatory which stated:

For each of YOUR responses to Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Admissions 

(Nos. 13-25) that is not an unqualified admission:

(1) state the number of the request;

(2) state all facts upon which YOU base YOUR response;

(3) state the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have 

knowledge of those facts; and

(4) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support YOUR 

response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the PERSON who 

has each DOCUMENT or thing.

(ECF No. 75-2.) Plaintiff also served a fifth request for production of documents which stated, 

“If YOUR response to any of Plaintiffs Third Set of Requests for Admissions (Nos. 13- 25) is 

not an unqualified admission produce all documents supporting your response and/or denial.” 

(ECF No. 75-2.) Finally, Plaintiff served a third request for admission setting forth thirteen 

requests for admissions. (ECF No. 75-2.) In her response, Plaintiff contends that this request for 

admissions is the “succinct description of the materials sought through discovery.” (Pl.’s 

Response to the Court’s Nov. 2, 2015 Order 3, ECF No. 77.) The Court finds that a request for 

admissions is not a “succinct description of the materials sought through discovery.” 

Since Plaintiff served new requests for discovery, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Defendant has thirty days to respond and the October 8, 2015 order is moot. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to request an informal 

telephonic conference as the responses to the discovery request are not yet due.

In the November 4, 2015 response, Plaintiff requests an order on her motion to compel. 

However, there is no motion to compel currently pending before the Court. Most recently the 

parties requested an informal discovery dispute conference and the Court found that it was 

unable to resolve the dispute without a more succinct description of the materials sought by 

Plaintiff. (ECF No. 73.) At this time, all the discovery disputes that have been brought before 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 78 Filed 11/06/15 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

the Court have been addressed. 

If the parties are unable to resolve the remaining issues, a motion to compel can be filed 

after the date by which the discovery responses are due. In the event that a motion to compel 

becomes necessary, the parties shall contact the courtroom deputy to determine a date by which 

the Court and parties are available. The parties shall set the motion to compel for hearing on that 

date and will be required to appear at 8:00 a.m. and should plan to spend the day meeting and 

conferring until they are able to resolve the dispute. During the course of the meet and confer, 

the Court will periodically check in on the parties’ progress in resolving the outstanding issues.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for an order 

modifying the October 8, 2015 order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 78 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 3