Wright v. Romona's Restaurant, 8:15CV268. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160310b94
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT , Magistrate Judge . On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion asking that Requests for Admissions served upon Defendants be deemed admitted. (Filing No. 19. ) On March 2, 2016, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion, finding that the Requests for Admissions were premature because they were served before the parties had met and conferred as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. (Filing No. 20. ) Plaintiff now requests that the Court reconsider its order,
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT , Magistrate Judge . On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion asking that Requests for Admissions served upon Defendants be deemed admitted. (Filing No. 19. ) On March 2, 2016, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion, finding that the Requests for Admissions were premature because they were served before the parties had met and conferred as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. (Filing No. 20. ) Plaintiff now requests that the Court reconsider its order, a..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion asking that Requests for Admissions served upon Defendants be deemed admitted. (Filing No. 19.) On March 2, 2016, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion, finding that the Requests for Admissions were premature because they were served before the parties had met and conferred as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. (Filing No. 20.) Plaintiff now requests that the Court reconsider its order, arguing that Defendants had a duty to respond to the Requests for Admissions even though they were premature.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiff has not identified any compelling reason for reconsideration. If Plaintiff desires responses to the Requests for Admissions, he could, among other things, appeal this order to Chief District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp or simply re-serve the subject Requests.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 23) is denied.
Source: Leagle
