In re Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 11md2286-MMA-MDD (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200107b07
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF ASHOK ARORA'S EX PARTE MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF No. 737] MITCHELL D. DEMBIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Ashok Arora ("Arora") in member case number 15cv1712-MMA-MDD moved to compel Midland 1 to supplement certain discovery responses relating to Midland's dialing technologies and processes. (ECF No. 737). On December 30, 2019, Midland filed an intent to respond to Arora's ex motion and indicated that the parties were working on a joint motion regar
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF ASHOK ARORA'S EX PARTE MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF No. 737] MITCHELL D. DEMBIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Ashok Arora ("Arora") in member case number 15cv1712-MMA-MDD moved to compel Midland 1 to supplement certain discovery responses relating to Midland's dialing technologies and processes. (ECF No. 737). On December 30, 2019, Midland filed an intent to respond to Arora's ex motion and indicated that the parties were working on a joint motion regard..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF ASHOK ARORA'S EX PARTE MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 737]
MITCHELL D. DEMBIN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Ashok Arora ("Arora") in member case number 15cv1712-MMA-MDD moved to compel Midland1 to supplement certain discovery responses relating to Midland's dialing technologies and processes. (ECF No. 737). On December 30, 2019, Midland filed an intent to respond to Arora's ex motion and indicated that the parties were working on a joint motion regarding the matter prior to Arora's ex parte filing. (ECF No. 739). Pursuant to this Court's Civil Chambers Rules, the parties were required to file a joint motion for determination of discovery dispute. Arora is aware of this requirement because the parties were preparing a joint motion on the instant dispute and because the same parties have filed a joint motion on a different dispute. (See ECF Nos. 736, 739). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Arora's ex parte motion due to noncompliance with this Court's joint motion procedure for discovery disputes. The parties may file a joint motion for determination of discovery dispute on Midland's dialing technologies and processes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court refers to all Defendants in this case as "Midland."
Source: Leagle
