Filed: Apr. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. This matter came before the undersigned on April 18, 2014, for hearing of plaintiff's motion to show cause. Attorney David M. Marco appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff and attorney Neil Evans appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendant. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's March 7, 2014 motion to show cau
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. This matter came before the undersigned on April 18, 2014, for hearing of plaintiff's motion to show cause. Attorney David M. Marco appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff and attorney Neil Evans appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendant. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's March 7, 2014 motion to show caus..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
This matter came before the undersigned on April 18, 2014, for hearing of plaintiff's motion to show cause. Attorney David M. Marco appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff and attorney Neil Evans appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendant.
Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's March 7, 2014 motion to show cause (Dkt. No. 68) is denied without prejudice as having been rendered moot by defendant's untimely production of post-judgment discovery responses;
2. Plaintiff's March 7, 2014 motion to show cause is denied without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion to compel further responses based on defendant's inadequate or incomplete discovery responses, as well as without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion for sanctions1, brought separately or in conjunction with a motion to compel, based on defendant's failure to timely produce discovery responses pursuant to the court's January 13, 2014 order (Dkt. No. 67); and
3. Plaintiff's motion to compel and/or for sanctions may be heard on shortened time and, if the parties cannot agree to a date for the hearing of plaintiff's motion to compel, plaintiff may file an ex parte request for an order shortening time.
