A. Letter from Michelle H. Ganz, dated October 5, 2005.
B. Letter from Dawn Valdivia, dated October 5, 2005.
Case 2:04—cv—00790—EHC Document 42-2 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 1 of 3
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
q q _ 0 SMOAK Sc STEWART, RC.
East C3H'}€1bHCk Road
U suite sac
ca S Phoenix, Arizona 85016
..i... , Telephone: 602.778.37OO
·“““’R““SATI~‘*“' Facsimile: 602.77s.a7s0
www.ogletreedeakins.com
Michelle H. Ganz
Direct: (602) 778-3708
michelle.ganz@OgletreeDeal
October 5, 2005
Dawn C. Valdivia, Esq. i
Quarles Brady Streich Lang, LLP
One Renaissance Square
Two North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Re: Charles Schwab Corporation adv. Marcella Johnson -
Dear Ms. Valdivia:
As we discussed earlier today, we would appreciate a two-week extension of time in which to
respond to Plaintiff s First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Non-Uniform
Interrogatories. The requests are voluminous and seek a broad range of information. The ’
current response deadline for both sets is Monday, October 10, 2005. The new deadline that we .
propose is October 24, 2005. Please let me know right away whether you will be willing to I
stipulate to an extension or whether we will need to file an expedited motion tomorrow. ,
Thank you in advance for your courtesy.
Very ly yours, ‘ I
Aichelle H. Ganz I
MHG:mlb
Atlanta, GA · Austin, TX · Birmingham, A1. · Charleston, SC - Charlotte, NC · Chicago, IL · Columbia, SC · Dallas, TX · Greensboro, NC · Greenville, SC · Houston, TX • Indianapolis, IN
Kansas Ciq.5 MO · Los Angeles, CA · Miami, FL - Morristown, NI · Nashville, TN · Phoenix, AZ - Raleigh, NC · St. Thomas. VE · San Antonio, TX ¤Tampa, FI. • Torrance, CA · Washington, DC
Case 2:04—cv—00790—EHC Document 42-2 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 2 of 3
wares Direct Dial: 602.229.5291
E-Mail: [email protected]
October 5, 2005
VIA EMAIL _
Michelle H. Ganz ei
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
2415 E. Camelback Road
Suite 800
Phoenix, AZ 85016
RE: Johnson v. Charles Schwab Corporation.
Dear Michelle:
We are not inclined to grant your client’s request for a two-week extension of time to
respond to Ms. .lohnson’s discovery requests because we need to review those responses prior to
the deposition that is scheduled for October 1 1, 2005, Because your clier1t’s request for an q
extension is based the premise that the discovery requests are “voluminous and seek a broad i
range of information," it is our understanding that your client needs more time to gather and
produce responses and documents to Ms. Johnson’s discovery. Thus, we will agree to grant the
extension if your client agrees that it is going to produce the requested information and
documents or agrees to tell us what it will produce.
Very truly yours, =
QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG
S/DCV
nam c. vaaivis
Dcvumy
QBPI-IX\1 15631.00002us626ss. 10
Case 2 :04-cv-00790-EHC Document 42-2 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC
Document 42-2
Filed 10/06/2005
Page 1 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC
Document 42-2
Filed 10/06/2005
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC
Document 42-2
Filed 10/06/2005
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms