HOWARD v. MELTON, 8:10-CV-1533-T-30TGW. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120329c06
Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order [DE#42] and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery ("motion") (Dkt. 43). In their motion, Defendants solely argue that they cannot be required to fund Plaintiff's civil litigation costs. 1 The Court agrees. However, the Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel (see Dkt. 42) does not direct Defendants to provide Plaintiff with free copies
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order [DE#42] and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery ("motion") (Dkt. 43). In their motion, Defendants solely argue that they cannot be required to fund Plaintiff's civil litigation costs. 1 The Court agrees. However, the Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel (see Dkt. 42) does not direct Defendants to provide Plaintiff with free copies o..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order [DE#42] and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery ("motion") (Dkt. 43). In their motion, Defendants solely argue that they cannot be required to fund Plaintiff's civil litigation costs.1 The Court agrees. However, the Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel (see Dkt. 42) does not direct Defendants to provide Plaintiff with free copies of the requested documents, or otherwise fund Plaintiff's litigation costs in this action. Instead, the order directs Defendants to either allow Plaintiff to inspect the relevant documents and provide Plaintiff with paper and a writing utensil to take notes, or provide Plaintiff with copies of the requested documents (Id. at p. 3, n.2). The order also indicates that if Defendants choose the option of allowing Plaintiff to inspect the documents, Plaintiff may obtain copies of those documents if he pays the copying costs in advance (Id.).
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that Defendants' motion (Dkt. 43) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendants do not: 1) assert objections to Plaintiff's request for production of documents; 2) object to allowing Plaintiff to inspect the relevant documents and provide Plaintiff with paper and a pen or pencil to make notes regarding the documents (see Dkt. 42 at p. 3, n.2); and 3) object to the Court's extension of the fact discovery cut-off date.
Source: Leagle
