Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY

v. LETTER BRIEFS

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, Defendants. 352, 353

12 The parties have submitted eight joint discovery letter briefs. (Dkt. Nos. 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353.) Oral argument is not required to resolve these disputes. See Civ. L.R. 7- 1(b). 1. Aramark’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Dkt. No. 346) Plaintiffs seek supplemental responses to three special interrogatories. First, Plaintiffs seek a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 1 which “requires Aramark to describe in detail the training received by the Aramark employee that is the subject of the interrogatory.” (Dkt. No. 346 at 1.) Aramark responded by directing Plaintiffs to the training records for the specified individuals. Plaintiffs object because these…