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.

Phuc N. Nguyen v. Donald C. Winter

December 23, 2010

PHUC N. NGUYEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD C. WINTER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At the last status conference, I advised plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, that I would deem his objections to the defendant's responses to his requests for documents and his requests for admissions as motions to compel. Since plaintiff has propounded several sets of requests to defendant, I will resolve the issues before me by referencing two documents that were submitted to the Court at the status conference: 1) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Discovery Responses*fn1 ("Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel"), and 2) Plaintiff's December 7, 2010 Hearing with Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola to Resolve Discovery Disputes*fn2 ("Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel").

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL

I. Document Requests

Document Request No. 1 Plaintiff's request is DENIED. A request for all documents, irrespective of their relationship to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit is patently overbroad.

Document Request No. 3 Plaintiff's request is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendant shall supplement its response by stating unequivocally whether there are any documents that support its defenses that have not been produced and, if so, shall produce them.

Document Request No. 4 Plaintiff's request is DENIED. Discovery is limited to materials that are relevant to a claim or defense. Materials generally relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit are discoverable only if good cause has been shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Good cause has not been shown.

Document Request No. 5 Plaintiff's request is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Personnel files cannot be produced without a Privacy Act protective order. Defendant shall prepare one and, upon its execution, shall produce from those files only the material in the file that is relevant to a claim or defense in this case.

Document Request No. 6 Plaintiff's request is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The request for performance evaluations of persons other than plaintiff and his comparators for the position or positions at issue is overly broad. Defendant shall, however, produce the performance evaluations for plaintiff for the period requested.

Document Request No. 7 Plaintiff's request is DENIED. The defendant's interpretation of the request to require the production of the Reports of Investigation denominated in its answer is correct.

Document Request No. 8 Plaintiff's request is DENIED. Again, defendant's interpretation of the request is correct.

Document Request No. 9 Plaintiff's request is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendant shall produce any documents, whether or not in the Reports of Investigation, that pertains to any effort to recruit a specific person for the positions at issue.

Document Request No. 10 Plaintiff's request is DENIED. The request is patently overbroad.

Document Request No. 11 Plaintiff's request is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendant shall produce any documents that explain why ...


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.