Rosales

Rosales v. Crawford and Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 27, 20212:20-cv-02530California4,615 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EMA ROSALES, No. 2:20-cv-02530 JAM AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER CRAWFORD AND COMPANY;

BROADSPIRE INSURANCE SERVICES,

INC., Defendants. 17 This matter is before the court on two separate discovery motions by defendants in this pregnancy discrimination case. First, defendants Crawford & Company (“Crawford”) and Broadspire Services, Inc. (“Broadspire”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv) and Local Rule 251 for an order compelling plaintiff Ema Rosales (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Crawford’s Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 7, and 10, and to produce additional documents in response to Crawford’s Request for Production Nos. 3, 14-16, 23, and 25. ECF No. 20. Second, defendants move for a protective order staying the depositions of their employees Maile Apau-Norris and Naomi Ikeda, noticed for August 25 and 26, 2021. ECF No. 23. These discovery…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.