Timothy REPASS and William McCandless, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TNT CRANE AND RIGGING, INC., Defendant MO:18-CV-00107-DC-RCG United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Midland-Odessa Division Signed August 18, 2021 Counsel Aaron Michael Johnson, Fair Labor Law, Austin, TX, Daniel Anthony Verrett, Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Moreland Verrett, P.C., Wimberley, TX, for Plaintiffs. G. Mark Jodon, Kevin S. Little, Jonathan Andrew Sprague, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant. Griffin, Ronald C., United States Magistrate Judge AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO FULLY ANSWER INTERROGATORIES *1 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant TNT Crane and Rigging, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Fully Answer Interrogatories (“Motion to Compel”) (Doc. 134); Plaintiffs William Scott McCandless and Timothy W. Repass's Response in opposition (Doc. 138). This case is before the undersigned through an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Appendix C of the Local Court Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. (Doc. 102). The Court held a hearing regarding the instant Motion on August 13, 2021. After due consideration of the applicable case law, the parties’ briefings and arguments at the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. 134). On August 17, 2021, the Court mistakenly entered an Order referencing Document 131, which is a Motion the Court previously ruled on, when in fact the Court's Order should have referenced Document 134, the instant Motion that the Court is considering. The Court now WITHDRAWS Document 153 and REPLACES it with the instant Order. I. DISCUSSION A. Interrogatory 5 The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel to the extent that the 15 Plaintiffs which Defendant chose to depose are hereby ORDERED to supplement their responses to Interrogatory 5, if they have not already done so, within 7 days of this Order. B. Interrogatory 11 The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel as to any Plaintiffs who already answered this interrogatory and stated they would supplement their original responses. Those Plaintiffs are now ORDERED to supplement their responses to Interrogatory 11 within 7 days of this Order. Note: this ruling only applies to Plaintiffs in the original group this interrogatory was propounded upon. C. Interrogatories 13 and 14 The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Compel on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ original responses were sufficient, and Defendant had the opportunity to expand upon these topics when Defendant deposed the 15 Plaintiffs of its choosing. D. Interrogatories 19 and 20 During the August 13, 2021 hearing, the parties advised the Court that Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs’ responses to Interrogatories 19 and 20 are moot. As a result, Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs’ responses to interrogatories 19 and 20 are DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 131). II. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 134). It is so ORDERED.