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.

Yatram Indergit, On Behalf of v. Rite Aid Corporation

November 23, 2011

YATRAM INDERGIT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge:

ORDER

A tape-recorded conference call having been held on November 22, 2011, for the reasons stated on the tape-recording of the call, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The parties are directed to confer with each other concerning the location of the District Manager depositions. If any disputes arise concerning the location of particular depositions, the parties may then raise those specific disputes with me. The centralization of these depositions will promote efficiency and is, therefore, desirable.

2. Defendants' objection to plaintiffs' request for (1) any complaints that each District Manager being deposed received concerning hours worked or duties performed by Store Managers in their districts, and (2) any handwritten or typed memoranda, lists or files regarding the assignments and duties given to Store Managers is sustained to the extent that plaintiffs seek such documents with respect to Store Managers other than the fifty store managers that the parties have deposed.

3. Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 1 concerning the corporate formation of Rite Aid, including its organizational structure, management, business structure, ownership interests, and document retention and destruction policies is sustained.

4. Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 2 concerning Rite Aid's responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories is overruled. Defendants retain the right to object to specific deposition questions concerning this topic.

5. Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 3 concerning Rite Aid's responses to plaintiff's document requests is overruled. Defendants retain the right to object to specific deposition questions concerning this topic.

6. Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 4 concerning interactions among store, district, and regional management of Rite Aid is sustained.

7. Defendants' objection to plaintiffs'

Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 11 concerning Rite Aid's policy on catastrophic ...


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.