The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeffrey L. VIKEN United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the court pursuant to defendant's motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to two interrogatories and one request for production of documents. (Docket 44). Plaintiffs resist responding to these discovery requests. (Docket 48). This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.
The court limits its recitation to the procedural history necessary to resolve defendant's motion to compel. The court incorporates by reference the more detailed recitation set forth in its previous order in this case. (Docket 40).
On December 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. (Docket 18). In response, defendant filed a motion for pre-certification discovery, which plaintiffs opposed. (Dockets 22 & 25). Defendant sought to conduct discovery, including written discovery and depositions, before filing its response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (Docket 22).
On March 12, 2010, the court entered an order allowing the parties 45 days to conduct discovery. (Docket 40 at p. 12). The court limited the scope of discovery to class certification issues only. Id. Subsequently, the parties disagreed as to the extent of the discovery allowed by the court. After making a good-faith attempt to resolve this dispute before seeking the court's intervention, see Docket 46, defendant filed the instant motion to compel.
Defendant seeks to compel plaintiffs' full and complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 6 and Request for Production No. 19. The court notes the burden is on defendant, as the party seeking discovery, to make a threshold showing of relevance before plaintiffs "are required to open wide the doors of discovery and to produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear upon the issues in the case." Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs, as the party resisting production of discovery, bear the burden of establishing lack of relevancy. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Financial Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511 (N.D. Iowa 2000). The court shall consider each discovery request in turn.
A. Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 6
Defendant's Interrogatory No. 4, as set forth in its First Set of Interrogatories, requests the following information:
Separately identify every source of income you have had since January 1, 2008, and for each source of income identified, state the amount you received and the reason for payment (e.g., wages, consultant's fees, sales, profits, workers' compensation benefits, disability benefits, unemployment benefits, government entitlements, etc.), and identify all documents that refer or relate to the source of income. (Docket 45, Exhibit A, pp. 2-3). Defendant's Interrogatory No. 6, as set forth in its First Set of Interrogatories, requests the following information:
Identify every prospective employer or placement agency with whom you have sought employment since January 1, ...