JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the following is, hereby, ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Alvin Macon's Errata Sheet [#20] is DENIED.
2. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order from Supernumerary Interrogatories [#29] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. In addition, counsel will meet in person and in good faith attempt to arrive at an agreement as to which of the interrogatories will be answered and what documents, sought by the interrogatories will be produced. Such meeting will take place within fifteen days of this Order and counsel will file a joint report of their meeting within ten days thereafter, indicating what, if any, further judicial action is required.
3. Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery From the Office of Compliance [#36] is
DENIED without prejudice. In addition, plaintiff must show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order why I should not order the Office of Compliance to comply with the subpoena. If plaintiff has no objection, the Office of Compliance will respond in writing within 30 days thereafter as to why it should still not be compelled to comply with the subpoena. Similarly, SAA will have until 30 days after the Office of Compliance's submission to respond as to all issues presented by either the Office of Compliance or plaintiff.
4. Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff [#37] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In addition, plaintiff will have to provide in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order a response to interrogatories 1 and 2 that provides a much clearer explanation of how the counts differ in legal theory from each other.
5. Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Rule 37 to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiff's Request for Interrogatories [#38] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In addition, defendant will supplement in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order Request Numbers 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14. Defendant will also provide the business addresses and phone numbers of the witnesses plaintiff has named in his motion and reply: Alvin Macon, Karen Miller, Karen Ellis, Mr. Banks' warehouse co-workers, Ms. Goldring, Ms. Coates, Keith Kennedy, Mr. Pickle, Catherine Brooks, and Ann Harkins. Finally, defendant will identify clearly all individuals who reviewed or supervised plaintiff's work and all individuals who reviewed his application for the position he sought. Defendant must also disclose the officials that: 1) narrowed the candidate list to two finalists, 2) made the final selection for the Branch Manager position, and 3) decided to terminate Mr. Banks.
6. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order from Plaintiff's Request for Admissions; Request for Expedited Ruling [#47] is DENIED. In addition, defendant will respond to plaintiff's 150 requests for admissions within 30 days of the date of this Order. Finally, plaintiff's cross-motion for attorney's fees and costs, contained within plaintiff's Opposition to the Seargent-At-Arms' Motion for a Protective Order from Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and Cross Moves for the Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs [#55] is DENIED.
7. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Rule 30(B)(6) Notice of Video Deposition [#57] is DENIED without prejudice. In addition, the parties will attempt in good faith to arrive at a mutually agreeable listing of topics for the 30(b)(6) depositions that are to be taken and the 30(b)(6) witnesses who will speak to them. The list of topics and corresponding list of witnesses should be submitted to me for approval within 30 days of the date of this Order.
8. Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Defendant from Offering Testimony Concerning the Subject Matter of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition and Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs [#59] is DENIED.
9. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Fully and Completely Respond to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents and Provide Identified Documents [#61] is DENIED andPlaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Privilege Log and Motion for an Order that Defendant Has Waived Privilege as to Responsive Documents Not Produced [#71] is DENIED. In addition, SAA will show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order why Banks should not be awarded attorney's fees and costs for having to file a motion to compel in the first instance. Finally, I will order SAA to show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this Order why sanctions should not be awarded against it. Plaintiff will then have 30 days within which to respond and SAA will then have 15 days within which to reply. Finally, SAA will produce within 30 days of the date of this Order all documents claimed to be privileged for my in camera review.
10. Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof [#70] is DENIED.
11. Defendant's Request for Clarification of Scheduling Order [#35] is DENIED as moot.
12. Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Compel [#40] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
13. Defendant's Motion for an Expedited Ruling on Defendant's Motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Period and Deadline for Dispositive Motions and Memorandum of Law in Support [#77] is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.