Jenkins v. Corizon Health, Inc., CV 418-099. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180904967
Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint (doc. 26) and to compel the appearance of a corporate designee of the Chatham County Sheriff's Office pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (docs. 29 & 30). Neither defendants nor the Chatham County Sheriff's Office 1 have responded, 2 so the motions are unopposed by operation of Local Rule 7.5. S.D. Ga. L. R. 7.5 ("Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a m
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint (doc. 26) and to compel the appearance of a corporate designee of the Chatham County Sheriff's Office pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (docs. 29 & 30). Neither defendants nor the Chatham County Sheriff's Office 1 have responded, 2 so the motions are unopposed by operation of Local Rule 7.5. S.D. Ga. L. R. 7.5 ("Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a mo..
More
ORDER
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint (doc. 26) and to compel the appearance of a corporate designee of the Chatham County Sheriff's Office pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (docs. 29 & 30). Neither defendants nor the Chatham County Sheriff's Office1 have responded,2 so the motions are unopposed by operation of Local Rule 7.5. S.D. Ga. L. R. 7.5 ("Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion."). Accordingly, plaintiffs' unopposed motions (docs. 26, 29 & 30) are GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Sheriffs John Wilcher and Roy Harris, as well as the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, are named as defendants. The Chatham County Sheriff's Department is not a named defendant, but plaintiff was advised by these named defendants that a witness from the Sheriff's Department would be both designated and made available to testify to certain topics which their own designees could not cover. Doc. 29 at 2.
2. Notably, the parties jointly sought and received an extension of discovery deadlines to accommodate further discovery efforts. Docs. 31 & 32. Perhaps they anticipated resolving this discovery dispute as well in their extended Schedule. Indeed, plaintiffs represented their belief that the County was "agreeable" to producing the requested witness in their supplemental motion to compel. Doc. 30 at 1.
Source: Leagle
