WALLACE v. TRI-COUNTY RENTALS & SALES, INC., 1:11-cv-00207-MP-GRJ. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120215735
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on doc. 18, Motion to Strike and Compel Compliance and doc. 19, Motion to Continue by Tri-County Rentals & Sales, Inc., and Gary J Marquis. On December 30, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order tailored to meet the particular circumstances of this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case. Defendants now move the Court to strike the plaintiff's non-responsive interrogatory answers and compel compliance with the court's s
Summary: ORDER GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on doc. 18, Motion to Strike and Compel Compliance and doc. 19, Motion to Continue by Tri-County Rentals & Sales, Inc., and Gary J Marquis. On December 30, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order tailored to meet the particular circumstances of this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case. Defendants now move the Court to strike the plaintiff's non-responsive interrogatory answers and compel compliance with the court's sc..
More
ORDER
GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on doc. 18, Motion to Strike and Compel Compliance and doc. 19, Motion to Continue by Tri-County Rentals & Sales, Inc., and Gary J Marquis. On December 30, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order tailored to meet the particular circumstances of this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case. Defendants now move the Court to strike the plaintiff's non-responsive interrogatory answers and compel compliance with the court's scheduling order. In addition, defendants move the Court to continue the filing of the verified summary and the service of records until the plaintiff answers the Court's interrogatories in good faith. On February 14, 2012, the Court held a telephonic hearing on these motions in which both parties participated.
After hearing from the parties, the Court has determined the FLSA scheduling order will not facilitate the early resolution of the dispute and avoid the expenditure of significant attorney's fees as originally expected. The Court recognizes that plaintiff's answers to the Court's interrogatories were non-responsive. However, based on the parties' representations, enforcement of the FLSA scheduling order will likely generate more litigation and associated attorney's fees than it was intended to avoid.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's motion to strike and compel compliance, doc 18, is DENIED.
2. The Court's FLSA scheduling order, doc. 5, is VACATED.
3 The Clerk is directed to set the following deadlines:
Response to Amended Complaint February 27, 2012
Initial Disclosures February 29, 2012
Expert Reports May 31, 2012
Discovery June 29, 2012
Dispositive Motions July 31, 2012
Mediation August 31, 2012
4. Defendant's motion to continue, doc. 19, is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
