Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HARRINGTON v. ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION, 2:15-cv-322-FtM-38MRM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20151209b49 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Larry Harrington's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. #44) filed on December 2, 2015. Counsel moves the Court for an order directing Defendant, RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, to fully and completely respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. On December 7, 2015, the Court held a Preliminary Pretrial Conference hearing in which Plaintiff's specific concerns relating to
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Larry Harrington's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. #44) filed on December 2, 2015. Counsel moves the Court for an order directing Defendant, RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, to fully and completely respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. On December 7, 2015, the Court held a Preliminary Pretrial Conference hearing in which Plaintiff's specific concerns relating to the discovery requests were addressed on the record. Having heard the arguments of counsel and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to compel.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Plaintiff Larry Harrington's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. #44) is GRANTED as stated on the record at the preliminary pretrial conference. Responses to the Plaintiff's discovery requests are due on or before December 28, 2015.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer