Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

COONEY v. BARRY SCHOOL OF LAW, 6:14-cv-106-Orl-22KRS. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20151009853 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND SPOILATION OF DOCUMENTS AND DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO FULLY COMPLY WITH COURT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER (Doc. No. 112) FILED: October 7, 2015 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff Joseph Cooney represents that he and Defendant's counsel conferred
More

ORDER

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND SPOILATION OF DOCUMENTS AND DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO FULLY COMPLY WITH COURT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER (Doc. No. 112) FILED: October 7, 2015 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff Joseph Cooney represents that he and Defendant's counsel conferred prior to the filing of the motion. Doc. No. 112, at 10. However, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) because it does state "whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion." Any renewed motion should contain this information. Any renewed motion should also identify what specific sanction(s) Plaintiff is seeking for each wrongdoing claimed.

DONE and ORDERED.

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