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.

Doherty v. City of Maryville

July 29, 2008

MICHAEL DOHERTY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF MARYVILLE, ET AL.., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

(Varlan/Shirley)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The parties came before the undersigned on July 25, 2008, for a telephone conference concerning a discovery dispute. Participating on behalf of Plaintiffs were Molly Elkin and Megan Mechak. Participating on behalf of Defendants were Reid Spaulding and Robert Watson. The first area of dispute was in regard to Defendants' request to be provided the contents of a computer disk, which contained information inputted by Gary Williamson. The second area of dispute was in regard to Defendants' request to be provided any and all documents showing disbursements and or withdrawals of money from Local 4053's general bank account.

With regard to Defendants' request for Plaintiffs to provide information saved on a computer disk, Plaintiffs submit they are willing to provide the computer disk for Defendants review, subject to certain limitations, mainly that the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the people listed are redacted. The Court finds Plaintiffs suggested limitation reasonable and ORDERS Plaintiffs to provide Defendants, within three business days, a copy of the computer disk, with the names, addresses, and phone numbers redacted from the documents. Plaintiffs are to note on the documents produced that they redacted the information per this Court's order.

With regard to Defendants' request for Plaintiffs to provide any and all documents showing all disbursements and/or withdrawals of money from Local 4053's general bank account (at CBBC bank), the Court finds this information has been previously deemed discoverable to the extent it related to fund-raising, and that Plaintiffs were ordered to provide it in a timely manner [See Doc. 38]. Accordingly, absent any evidence that Plaintiffs are in violation of this Court's previous order, Defendants request is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080729

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...

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.