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.

GAUL v. ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania


February 9, 2004.

KAREN LEE GAUL
v.
ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HERBERT HUTTON, District Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of February, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc. d/b/a Zep Manufacturing, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Fully Respond to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Docket No. 23), Plaintiff's response (Docket No. 28), Defendant's reply (Docket No. 31), and Plaintiff's sur-reply (Docket No. 33), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:[fn*] Page 2

(1) as to Interrogatory No. 6, DENIED;*fn1
(2) as to Interrogatory No. 8 & 9, GRANTED;*fn2
(3) as to Interrogatory No. 10, DENIED;*fn3
(4) as to Interrogatory No. 12, GRANTED;*fn4
(5) as to Interrogatory No. 13, DENIED;*fn5
  (6) as to Interrogatory No. 15 and Request No. 38, GRANTED;*fn6 Page 3

 

(7) as to Interrogatory No. 16 and Request No. 39, GRANTED;*fn7
  (8) as to Interrogatory Nos. 17 & 18 and Request Nos. 41 & 42, GRANTED;*fn8 Page 4

  (9) as to Request No. 2, DENIED;*fn9

 

(10) as to Request Nos. 5 & 6, GRANTED*fn10
(11) as to Request No. 8, DENIED;*fn11
(12) as to Request No. 12, DENIED as moot;*fn12
(13) as to Request Nos. 23 & 24, GRANTED;*fn13
  (14) as to Request Nos. 25, 28, & 36, GRANTED IN PART and Page 5 DENIED IN PART;*fn14 and

 

(15) as to Request Nos. 35 & 45, DENIED.*fn15
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall comply with this Order within thirty (30) days from its date.

 [fn*] This is an employment discrimination suit brought under, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Factual background for the case can be found in the Court's January 30, 2004 Memorandum and Order. In a Memorandum and Order dated February 4, 2004 addressing Plaintiff's motion to compel, the Court delineated the scope of discovery to be the period starting from June 1, 1998 to the present. Accordingly, except where specified in this Order, the temporal scope of discovery in this motion is also limited to the same time period.

  "It is well-established that the scope and conduct of discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial court." Marroquin-Manriques v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery of "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is not limited solely to admissible evidence but encompasses matters which "appear[] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." See id; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). "Relevance is construed broadly and determined in relation to the facts and circumstances of each case." Hall v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 164 F.R.D. 406, 407 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Once the party from whom discovery is sought raises an objection, the party seeking discovery must demonstrate the relevancy of the information requested. Vitale v. McAtee, 170 F.R.D. 404, 406 (E.D. Pa. 1997). At that point, the burden shifts back to the objecting party to show why discovery should not be permitted. Id.


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.