Brahma Group, Inc. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 17-1076-JWB. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20181023g80
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Brahma Group, Inc., has filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 49) defendant, Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents that fall into four categories: 1) Personnel files of three key Cargill employees; 2) The bonus structure applicable to key Cargill employees; 3) Production information for Cargill's Dodge City facility; and 4) Safety and incident reports concerning instances at
Summary: ORDER JAMES P. O'HARA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Brahma Group, Inc., has filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 49) defendant, Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents that fall into four categories: 1) Personnel files of three key Cargill employees; 2) The bonus structure applicable to key Cargill employees; 3) Production information for Cargill's Dodge City facility; and 4) Safety and incident reports concerning instances at ..
More
ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Brahma Group, Inc., has filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 49) defendant, Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents that fall into four categories:
1) Personnel files of three key Cargill employees;
2) The bonus structure applicable to key Cargill employees;
3) Production information for Cargill's Dodge City facility; and
4) Safety and incident reports concerning instances at the Dodge City facility during the time of Brahma's work.1
The motion was filed on October 5, 2018, making October 19, 2018, the deadline for defendant to respond.2 Defendant has filed no response to the motion, and it is therefore granted as unopposed.3 Defendant is hereby ordered to respond to the subject discovery requests by November 5, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The motion states defendant objected to this discovery on relevance grounds.
2. See D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1).
3. See D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b) ("If a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed within the D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion. Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without further notice.").
Source: Leagle
