Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge. The motion to compel filed by plaintiff, Charles Hunt, was heard on July 8, 2013. As a result of what was said by counsel and by the court, all of which was recorded by the court reporter, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The separate suit in this court entitled Amelia Hunt v. 21 st Mortgage Corporation, which was terminated on October 19, 2012, is something of which this court can take judicial knowledge, but unless
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge. The motion to compel filed by plaintiff, Charles Hunt, was heard on July 8, 2013. As a result of what was said by counsel and by the court, all of which was recorded by the court reporter, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The separate suit in this court entitled Amelia Hunt v. 21 st Mortgage Corporation, which was terminated on October 19, 2012, is something of which this court can take judicial knowledge, but unless ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. ACKER, Jr., District Judge.
The motion to compel filed by plaintiff, Charles Hunt, was heard on July 8, 2013. As a result of what was said by counsel and by the court, all of which was recorded by the court reporter, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The separate suit in this court entitled Amelia Hunt v. 21st Mortgage Corporation, which was terminated on October 19, 2012, is something of which this court can take judicial knowledge, but unless the parties in the above-styled case agree to the admissibility of evidence acquired in that case, the right of access to discovery materials in this case will depend entirely on the procedures in this case.
2. The motion to compel insofar as it refers to Interrogatories Nos. 16, 17, and 23 is MOOT.
3. Defendant's objection to Interrogatory No. 25 is well taken. Unless and until plaintiff designates the names of plaintiff's neighbors and relatives who may or may not have consented to being contacted and called on their cellular telephones, plaintiff's motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 25 is DENIED.
4. Defendant's objections to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 are well taken. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 are, except to the extent already answered, DENIED.
5. With respect to Interrogatory No. 2, defendant having stated that it "will comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A)", it shall do so within fourteen (14) days. Otherwise, defendant's objections to Interrogatory No. 2 are well taken, and plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff's motion to compel a complete response to Interrogatory No. 25 is DENIED, but will be reconsidered when and if plaintiff furnishes defendant the names of plaintiff's neighbors and relatives who may or may not have consented to being contacted and called on their cellular telephones.
The scheduling order entered on November 5, 2012, is hereby AMENDED to extend the discovery cutoff from July 19, 2013, to August 2, 2013.
