SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION v. M & D COATINGS, INC., 3:14-CV-278-DMB-SAA. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20160502b53
Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL S. ALLAN ALEXANDER , Magistrate Judge . On April 18, 2016 defendant filed a third motion to compel plaintiff's responses to three requests for production of documents. Docket 104. Defendant propounded the discovery requests at issue to plaintiff on June 1, 2015 and February 8, 2016. 1 Docket 22. Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests on July 21, 2015 and February 15, 2016. Docket 32, 88. The court has reviewed the motion and holds that it should be de
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL S. ALLAN ALEXANDER , Magistrate Judge . On April 18, 2016 defendant filed a third motion to compel plaintiff's responses to three requests for production of documents. Docket 104. Defendant propounded the discovery requests at issue to plaintiff on June 1, 2015 and February 8, 2016. 1 Docket 22. Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests on July 21, 2015 and February 15, 2016. Docket 32, 88. The court has reviewed the motion and holds that it should be den..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
S. ALLAN ALEXANDER, Magistrate Judge.
On April 18, 2016 defendant filed a third motion to compel plaintiff's responses to three requests for production of documents. Docket 104. Defendant propounded the discovery requests at issue to plaintiff on June 1, 2015 and February 8, 2016.1 Docket 22. Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests on July 21, 2015 and February 15, 2016. Docket 32, 88. The court has reviewed the motion and holds that it should be denied.
LOCAL UNIFORM CIVIL RULE 7(b)(2)(C) requires a party to "file a discovery motion sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to allow response to the motion, ruling by the court and time to effectuate the court's order before the discovery deadline." Because defendant's motion was not filed sufficiently in advance of the April 29, 2016 discovery deadline to allow response, ruling and effectuation of the court's ruling on the motion before the deadline as required by L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2)(C), the court finds that the motion is not well taken, and it is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant alleges that it propounded a Fifth Set of Requests for Production of Documents on February 8, 2016. However, no Notice of Service was filed on CM/ECF.
Source: Leagle
