Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production of documents. Because oral argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Fair Enterprises, Inc. to respond to requests for production o
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production of documents. Because oral argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Fair Enterprises, Inc. to respond to requests for production of..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production of documents. Because oral argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Fair Enterprises, Inc. to respond to requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Because no response had been made, the motion was briefed under Local Rule 251(c) (no joint statement required where failure to respond to discovery). Defendant has now produced responses to the discovery and has advised the court that the reason for the delay was the death by suicide of the operator of the defendant business.1
Because discovery responses have now been provided and there has been no meet and confer regarding the adequacy of the responses, the motion to compel will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The hearing date of February 10, 2016 on plaintiff's motion to compel is vacated;
2. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 11) is denied without prejudice; and
3. The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the circumstances reflected in the record before it on this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5).
