Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de64> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de64 RegisterActionDate "2020-06-07" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de64 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiff's motion for clarification and for leave to serve additional discovery requests 63 is granted in part and denied in part. As for the request for clarification, the motion is granted. The court's order stating that "Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses (both ordered and agreed to) by February 25, 2020[,]" (R. 41), must be read in conjunction with the accompanying order, (R. 42). In the order identified as Document No. 42 on the court's docket, the court referenced the parties' agreement as to Interrogatory ("INT") No. 8 and Request to Produce ("RTP") No. 14, (id. at 1), and also included its ruling granting Plaintiff's motion to compel as to INT No. 9 and RTP No. 16, (id. at 2). Accordingly, Defendant was ordered to supplemented its responses to INT Nos. 8 and 9 and RTP Nos. 14 and 16 by February 25, 2020. As for the request to serve additional discovery requests, the motion is granted as to INT Nos. 11 and 12, but denied as to RTP Nos. 31 and 32. First, answering INT Nos. 11 and 12 is a more efficient approach to discovery on the text messages and photos than requiring a corporate designee to answer them as Rule 30(b)(6) topics. Second, the court is not convinced at this time that metadata is relevant. For these reasons, Defendant is ordered to answer INT Nos. 11 and 12 by June 19, 2020. Mailed notice (Kim, Young) (Entered: 06/07/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de64 AdministrativeID "64" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de64 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de64 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03903_de63 @default.