CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 112 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Kristin Naca,

Civ. No. 16-3263 (PJS/BRT) Plaintiff, ORDER

vs. Macalester College, Defendant.

The parties have identified several areas of dispute regarding fact discovery. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order in this case (Doc. No. 39), the parties participated in an informal telephone conference on September 15, 2017 (Doc. No. 111). Following the conference, both parties did not agree to resolve the discovery disputes through the Informal Dispute Resolution process set forth in the Scheduling Order. The Court therefore sets forth the following briefing and hearing schedule. The Court understands that the fact discovery disputes relate to four areas of discovery: 1.

Whether certain written discovery requests are within the scope of Rule 26 and proportional to the case;

2.

Whether Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice is timely in light of the Scheduling Order’s requirements;

3.

Whether additional document requests, which accompanied the 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice, is permissible; and

CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 112 Filed 09/20/17 Page 2 of 4

4.

Whether Defendant may take the deposition of Hlee Vang.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel and supporting papers pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 on areas 1-3 is due on September 28, 2017. Defendant’s motion to compel and supporting papers pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 is due on September 28, 2017. Responses to the motions to compel are due October 5, 2017. No replies will be allowed. A hearing is scheduled for October 11, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. In addition to all of the requirements set forth in the Local Rules, Scheduling Order, and Practice Pointers, this Court will also require the parties to organize their briefs as follows: A.

Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of her Motion to Compel: 1.

Whether certain written discovery requests are within the scope of Rule 26 and proportional to the case.

Each written discovery request (interrogatory or document request) at issue must be set forth verbatim, followed by the responding party’s response/objections. For each request in dispute the following format is suggested: Written Discovery Request

Response

I.e. Pls.’ Interrogatory No. 4: [Full text]

[Full text of response]

Moving Party’s Position and Suggestions for Compromise [short description]

After listing the above for each request, the moving party’s argument as to why the discovery request is within the discovery scope and limits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) should be included. Plaintiff should also address Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s requests exceed the limitations set forth in the Scheduling Order. 2

CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 112 Filed 09/20/17 Page 3 of 4

Defendant’s Response must keep the same organizational structure and include: Written Discovery Request

Response

Responding Party’s Position and Suggestions for Compromise

I.e. Pls.’ Interrogatory No. 4: [Full text]

[Full text of response]

[short description]

After listing the above for each request, the responding argument corresponding to each request should be included. “The articulation of mere conclusory objections that something is “overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive,” is insufficient to carry the resisting party’s burden—that party must make a specific showing of reasons why the particular discovery should not be had.” Gowan v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503, 509 (D.S.D. 2015). 2.

Whether Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice is outside the scope or otherwise untimely.

Plaintiff must include copies of the deposition notices as attachments to an affidavit. Plaintiff’s memorandum must explain how the deposition notice addresses topics within the scope and limits of discovery and why it is not untimely under the Court’s Scheduling Order. To the extent deposition topics are addressed by Plaintiff or Defendant, the topic must be set forth verbatim in the memorandum of law. 3.

Whether additional document requests, which accompanied the 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice, is permissible.

If the document requests at issue are covered under document requests that were served pursuant to Rule 34, then the disputed document request must be addressed in part 1 above. If Plaintiff takes the position that additional requests may be made pursuant to 3

CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 112 Filed 09/20/17 Page 4 of 4

Rule 30(b)(6)—and not a document request under Rule 34—then Plaintiff must explain how the Rule applies to allow such requests. Plaintiff should also address Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s requests exceed the limitations set forth in the Scheduling Order. B.

Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel 4.

Whether Defendant may take the deposition of Hlee Vang.

Defendant takes the position that Hlee Vang is a fact witness. Plaintiff asserts that Hlee Vang is Plaintiff’s attorney. In its Motion to Compel, Defendant must explain what information Ms. Vang has that is within the scope and limits of discovery, taking into account Plaintiff’s position that Vang is one of Plaintiff’s attorneys in this case. Plaintiff’s response should include any arguments it has that the discovery sought is not relevant or discoverable because it is “an invasion of attorney-client privilege.”

Date: September 20, 2017

s/ Becky R. Thorson BECKY R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge

4