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.

Michael Simmons v. Pepsi Midamerica Co

October 1, 2012

MICHAEL SIMMONS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PEPSI MIDAMERICA CO., DEFENDANT.



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

ORDER

On September 28, 2012, the undersigned judge held a telephonic discovery dispute conference. Appearing for Plaintiff: Elizabeth Dillon and Ferne Wolf; for Defendant: Cory Kuhlenschmidt.

At issue were responses and objections contained within Defendant's answers and objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production, and Defendant's Supplemental Responses to those discovery requests. Also at issue was the relevance of financial information as it pertained to the issue of potential punitive damages in the case. This order summarizes the Court's rulings, the reasoning for which can be found in more detail on the hearing transcript.

The Court overruled Defendant's general objections.

The Court overruled Defendant's objection to Interrogatory #5.

The Court overruled Defendant's objection to Interrogatory #7.

Defendant withdrew the objections to Interrogatory #9 and Request for Production #20.

Defendant's objection to Request for Production #8 was overruled to the extent the request relates to Plaintiff's statements, which are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case.

Defendant's Objection to Request for Production #11 is sustained in part but overruled in part: Defendant must produce documents-relating to the Marion facility-pertaining to affirmative action plans and contracts that would contain reporting and recordkeeping obligations to the OFCCP.

Defendant withdrew the objections to Request for Production #12 and to Request for Production #13.

Defendant withdrew the objection to Request for Production #14 insofar as it objected to the production of emails, but maintained its objection to the production of attachments. Objection overruled; Defendant is directed to produce attachments.

Defendant's objection to Request for Production #16 is overruled in part;

Defendant's response to the Request is limited in time to five years before the instant complaint was filed, and limited in ...


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.