BANK v. KEARNEY, 8:13-cv-2627-T-26TBM. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150401e84
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of this case, together with the parties' written submissions, it is ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Identifying and Quantifying Recent Transfers (Dkt. 199) is denied. Plaintiff has failed to put forth any persuasive argument that would convince this Court to reopen the discovery process, even on the limited basis request
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of this case, together with the parties' written submissions, it is ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Identifying and Quantifying Recent Transfers (Dkt. 199) is denied. Plaintiff has failed to put forth any persuasive argument that would convince this Court to reopen the discovery process, even on the limited basis requeste..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of this case, together with the parties' written submissions, it is ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Limited Purpose of Identifying and Quantifying Recent Transfers (Dkt. 199) is denied. Plaintiff has failed to put forth any persuasive argument that would convince this Court to reopen the discovery process, even on the limited basis requested by the Plaintiff. The Court also agrees with the Defendants' arguments that there is nothing prohibiting the Defendant Bing Kearney from legitimately attempting to resolve his various debts with other creditors and that this is not the appropriate forum to settle priority of lien disputes among those creditors. Consequently, to grant the motion would be an exercise in futility and, given the past history of this case, would inevitably lead to unwarranted discovery disputes not only between the parties but with third parties.
Source: Leagle
