STIRILING v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 4:11CV01932 AGF. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20130621a81
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 215) for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 212) dated June 3, 2013, denying Defendants' May 16, 2013 motion (Doc. No. 191) for sanctions in the form of dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice, for Plaintiffs' alleged failure to submit answers to interrogatories. In its Memorandum and Order, the Court noted that Plaintiffs had responded
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 215) for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 212) dated June 3, 2013, denying Defendants' May 16, 2013 motion (Doc. No. 191) for sanctions in the form of dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice, for Plaintiffs' alleged failure to submit answers to interrogatories. In its Memorandum and Order, the Court noted that Plaintiffs had responded t..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 215) for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 212) dated June 3, 2013, denying Defendants' May 16, 2013 motion (Doc. No. 191) for sanctions in the form of dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice, for Plaintiffs' alleged failure to submit answers to interrogatories. In its Memorandum and Order, the Court noted that Plaintiffs had responded to the motion for sanctions, that they had mailed their answers on May 14, 2012, and Defendants did not reply refuting this statement. Defendants' now ask the Court to consider the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 195) that they had filed on May 21, 2013, as their reply to Plaintiffs' above-noted response.
Defendants' motion to dismiss filed on May 21, 2013 challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' interrogatory answers that were received on May 16, 2013. It remains pending as an independent motion. It would be nonsensical to consider it at this time as a reply addressing the motion for sanctions for failing to submit answers altogether.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. No. 215.)
Source: Leagle
