WILLSEY v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 12-2320. (2013)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20130827a55
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2013
Summary: ORDER ROBERT T. DAWSON, District Judge. On this 26th day of August 2013, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on July 17, 2013 (doc. 40) by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are the parties' objections (docs. 42, 50 & 54). The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation (doc. 40)
Summary: ORDER ROBERT T. DAWSON, District Judge. On this 26th day of August 2013, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on July 17, 2013 (doc. 40) by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are the parties' objections (docs. 42, 50 & 54). The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation (doc. 40) ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT T. DAWSON, District Judge.
On this 26th day of August 2013, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on July 17, 2013 (doc. 40) by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are the parties' objections (docs. 42, 50 & 54).
The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation (doc. 40) is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Barring Testimony of Sutterfield, Bean, Slaight and Lonon (doc. 30) is GRANTED as to Slaight and Lonon and DENIED as to Sutterfield and Bean.
The Court notes both parties raised various other issues in their objections indicating difficulty in mutually completing the discovery process in a timely manner. The Court advises the parties that Court intervention in discovery disputes is rare and undesirable and strongly suggests the parties work towards a mutual agreement without further guidance from the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle