Filed: Feb. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2013
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AWARDING FEES AND EXPENSES TO DEFENDANTS JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. This is a medical malpractice and breach of contract action that is currently before the Court on the objection of one of Plaintiffs' attorneys, James F.B. Daniels, to an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes during a discovery dispute. After granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, the Magistrate Judge issued an order that "Plaintiffs, their atto
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AWARDING FEES AND EXPENSES TO DEFENDANTS JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. This is a medical malpractice and breach of contract action that is currently before the Court on the objection of one of Plaintiffs' attorneys, James F.B. Daniels, to an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes during a discovery dispute. After granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, the Magistrate Judge issued an order that "Plaintiffs, their attor..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AWARDING FEES AND EXPENSES TO DEFENDANTS
JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.
This is a medical malpractice and breach of contract action that is currently before the Court on the objection of one of Plaintiffs' attorneys, James F.B. Daniels, to an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes during a discovery dispute. After granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, the Magistrate Judge issued an order that "Plaintiffs, their attorneys, or both, shall pay Defendants $1,396.05 for the fees and expenses incurred in bringing Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery." (Order at 3, Docket No. 250, Dec. 12, 2012; Order at 2, Docket No. 252, Jan. 3, 2013;.)
Mr. Daniels objects to the imposition of fees and expenses, asserting that he has never been "ordered to `pay' anything to anyone and in justice should not be required to do so now . . . ." (Objection at 2, Docket No. 265, Jan. 17, 2013.) However, another of Plaintiffs' attorneys, Rodney Ritner, already sent Defendants' counsel a check for $1,396.05 on January 9, 2013, without objection. (Letter to Magistrate Judge, Docket No. 261, Jan. 9, 2013.) Thus, Mr. Daniels is no longer required to pay the fees and expenses. Therefore, his objection to such a requirement is moot and the Magistrate Judge's order awarding fees and expenses to Defendants is affirmed. See Kennedy Bldg. Assocs. v. Viacom, Inc., 375 F.3d 731, 745 (8th Cir. 2004) ("`[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.'" (quoting Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979))).1
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' objection [Docket No. 265] is OVERRULED as moot and the Magistrate Judge's Order dated January 3, 2013 [Docket No. 252] is AFFIRMED.
