Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Harlan L. Glasper v. Amsted Rail Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 16, 2012

HARLAN L. GLASPER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMSTED RAIL COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Williams, Magistrate Judge:

ORDER

On August 16, 2012, this case came before the Court on a discovery dispute. Present via telephone for the dispute conference were, for Plaintiff, Rhonda Fiss, and for Defendant, Sarah Swatosh and R. Lance Witcher. This motion summarizes the Court's rulings during the discovery dispute conference. The detailed reasoning for the Court's rulings is available on the transcript of the hearing.

Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 2 was overruled in part. Defendants will produce summary job descriptions, as well as the pertinent residence addresses, in response to the interrogatory..

Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 9 was sustained.

Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 10 was sustained.

Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 11 was sustained in part and overruled in part. Insofar as the iPhone in question is a work phone, it is the proper subject of Interrogatory No. 11.

Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 12 was sustained in part and overruled in part. The objection was overruled only as to the person of Chris Dockery.

Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 15 was sustained in part and overruled in part. Regarding Interrogatory 15(A), the Court DIRECTS that addresses and phone numbers are provided by Defendant. Regarding Interrogatory 15(B), Defendants shall summarize the subjects of the facts and opinions held/known by the witnesses. Interrogatory 15(C) is overruled except to the extent there are claims of privilege.

The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer re: Interrogatories No. 3 and No. 4, as well as the requests for production.

As to issues of privilege and Defendant's privilege log, the following briefing schedule was set: Plaintiff's motion to compel (not to exceed 10 pages) is due on or before 8/30/2012; Defendant's response due (also not to exceed 10 pages) due on or before 9/13/2012.

The case is reset for two follow-up telephonic discovery conferences: (1) on 8/29/2012 at 10:20 a.m. to deal with remaining, non-privilege-related discovery disputes (pertinent documents should be submitted on or before 8/27/2012); (2) on 9/17/2012 at 3:30 p.m. to deal with issues remaining to Defendant's assertions of privilege.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS United States Magistrate Judge

20120816

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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