Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spano v. Boeing Co.

April 28, 2008

GARY SPANO, ET. AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On April 21, 2008, the Court held an in-person discovery dispute conference in this matter. The Court heard arguments regarding deposition testimony, interrogatories, and requests for production. The Court makes the following rulings:

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF ISSUES (DOC.160)

1. Regarding the refusal of Plaintiffs' experts to answer deposition questions concerning other 401(k) plan cases, information on benchmarking of other 401(k) plans in litigation, and total fees and billings to Plaintiffs' counsel:

Because the Court believes there to be no "typical" plan that compares to the plan at issue in the case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' experts are not required to disclose information on other plans or plan litigation used to formulate their expert opinions. Defendants' requests for supplements to expert deposition testimony and additional deposition time are DENIED. The Court notes that Defendants are not precluded from challenging before the District Court the qualifications of any expert.

2. Regarding the failure of Plaintiffs' expert Pomeranz to provide documentation and explanation for his calculations regarding the performance of the INVESCO/Dreyfus Science & Technology Fund:

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement with necessary documentation. Plaintiffs are further ORDERED to produce expert Pomeranz for two additional hours of telephone deposition on the issue.

3. Regarding Plaintiffs' failure to respond to written discovery:

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement their responses to interrogatories 18 - 50. The Court makes the following rulings regarding specific requests for admissions:

Number 5: Plaintiffs are NOT ORDERED to answer.

Number 14: Plaintiffs are ORDERED to answer.

Number 15: Plaintiffs are ORDERED to answer.

Number 16: Plaintiffs are ORDERED to answer.

Number 17: Request for admission 17 is AMENDED to read, "During the relevant time period, Plan participants could select their investment options from a menu of investment options." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.