ROBERT P. BIEGLER, CA BAR NO. 88506

BIEGLER ORTIS & CHAN

1107 Ninth Street, Suite 1025

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-3971

Facsimile: (916) 444-3975

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

GAYDA AIRTH, PATRICIA MALONE KEANE, 

JACK STEVENSON and ANDREW CARELTON 

ROBERT A. DOLINKO, CA BAR NO. 076256

CHRISTOPHER D. BAKER, CA BAR NO. 181557

DEBORAH R. SCHWARTZ, CA BAR NO. 2078934

THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP

101 Second Street, Suite 1800

San Francisco, California 94105-3601

Telephone: (415) 371-1200

Facsimile: (415) 371-1211

Attorneys for Defendant

THOMSON FINANCIAL INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAYDA AIRTH,

PATRICIA MALONE KEANE,

JACK STEVENSON,

ANDREW CARELTON, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THOMPSON FINANCIAL CO., INC., THE

THOMPSON CORPORATION, a

Corporation, and DOES 1-5, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case Nos.: Civ. S-04-2536 DFL GGH

Civ. S-04-2537 DFL GGH

Civ. S-04-2538 DFL GGH

Civ. S-04-2539 DFL GGH

[Consolidated for purposes of discovery only]

STIPULATION AND ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES

Case 2:04-cv-02539-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 5
Plaintiffs Gayda Airth, Patricia Malone Keane, Jack Stevenson and Andrew

Carelton (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant Thomson Financial Inc. (“Defendant”) through

their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and ask the Court to order as follows:

RECITALS

On August 23, 2004, Plaintiffs each filed an individual lawsuit against

Defendant. Each complaint alleged simply that Defendant failed to pay a portion of

each plaintiff’s sales commissions for the years 2000 through 2003. 

On February 16, 2005, Defendant served on each plaintiff two identical

discovery requests, a First Set of Interrogatories and a First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents, which requested information and documents pertaining to (1)

Defendant’s compensation plans and policies; (2) sales accounts showing Plaintiffs’

expected, and alleged non-receipt, of commission payments; and (3) Plaintiffs’ breach

of contract claims. 

On April 8, 2005, Plaintiffs served their responses. Plaintiffs did not object to

any of the discovery requests. 

In response to Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 10 and 13 through 15, each plaintiff

agreed to provide responsive information in supposedly attached “Exhibits.” However,

no exhibits were attached.

During the meet and confer process, Plaintiffs agreed to provide supplemental

interrogatory responses, which included the “Exhibits” referenced in their initial

responses.

To ensure timely production, Defendant filed a motion to compel further

responses on June 8, 2005, with a hearing date on July 28, 2005. At the Plaintiffs’

request, the hearing was postponed until August 18, 2005.

 In the interim, Plaintiffs’ counsel has been required to be out of the office due to

a death in the family and is unable to provide the supplemental responses prior to the

August 18, 2005 hearing date.

Case 2:04-cv-02539-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 5
Plaintiffs still are willing to provide Defendant with complete and accurate

supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 10 and 13 through 15. 

However, they need additional time to prepare those responses. 

Case 2:04-cv-02539-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION

1. The parties hereby agree and stipulate that each plaintiff will serve by

facsimile and mail, without objections, complete and accurate supplemental responses

to Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 10 and 13 through 15 no later than Friday, August 26,

2005. These supplemental responses will include, among other things, the “Exhibits”

referenced in their original interrogatory responses.

2. The parties further agree and stipulate that Defendant will take the

motion to compel, currently scheduled for August 18, 2005, off of the Court’s calendar.

3. The parties further agree and stipulate that if any of the plaintiffs breach

this Stipulation, Plaintiffs will not object to the Court awarding Defendant reasonable

sanctions and making any further orders necessary to compel the production of

complete and accurate supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 10 and

13 through 15.

Dated: August 16, 2005 BIEGLER ORTIS & CHAN 

By:______/s/___Robert P. Biegler________________

ROBERT P. BIEGLER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

GAYDA AIRTH, PATRICIA MALONE KEANE, 

JACK STEVENSON and ANDREW CARELTON 

Dated: August 16, 2005 THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP

By:______/s/___Christopher D. Baker_____________

ROBERT A. DOLINKO

CHRISTOPHER D. BAKER

DEBORAH R. SCHWARTZ

Attorneys for Defendant

THOMSON FINANCIAL INC. 

Case 2:04-cv-02539-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 4 of 5
ORDER

It is ordered that each plaintiff will serve by facsimile and mail, without

objections, complete and accurate supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7

through 10 and 13 through 15 no later than Friday, August 26, 2005. Those

supplemental responses will include, among other things, the “Exhibits” referenced in

their original interrogatory responses. 

If any of the plaintiffs breach this Order, the Court will award Defendant

reasonable sanctions and will make any further orders necessary to compel production

of complete and accurate supplemental responses to the disputed interrogatories.

Dated: 8/22/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_____________________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

04-2536.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02539-DFL-GGH Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 5 of 5