Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-05632_de72> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-05632_de72 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-12" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-05632_de72 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiff's partial objection 70 to the magistrate judge's order, R. 69, is rejected. The standard of review is clear error for this type of discovery order, and there was no error, let alone a clear one. The order correctly identified the relevant legal principles, including that a corporate Defendant cannot simply disclaim knowledge that is reasonably available to it R. 69 at 2-3. The order then **rejected** the defense's request for a protective order, making it clear that **if** the knowledge is reasonably available, then the defense must prepare its witness to testify on it. R. 69 at 5. If no current employee has the knowledge and it cannot be reasonably ascertained, then the order correctly says that lack of knowledge then indeed can be the response. Id. All of that is correct. The Court simply adds that if the defense disclaims knowledge on how the classification decision on the Plaintiff's job was made, then the Defendant will not be permitted later in the litigation to rely on any evidence on that issue. That might very well end-up harming the defense, especially if (and the Court is not definitively holding this) the Defendant bears the burden of proving an affirmative defense or an exemption. The objection is overruled. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/12/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-05632_de72 AdministrativeID "72" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-05632_de72 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-05632_de70 @default.