HV Technology Holdings, LLC v. Hawthorne, 17-CV-376-TCK-FHM. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20180301p53
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER FRANK H. McCARTHY , Magistrate Judge . Defendant's Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 36], has been fully briefed and is before the court for decision. The briefing focuses primarily on whether Plaintiffs waived any objections to the discovery requests by failing to timely respond and whether Defendant adequately conferred with Plaintiffs before filing the motion. Little attention is given to what, if any, discovery issues remain to be resolved by the court. In light of the parties
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER FRANK H. McCARTHY , Magistrate Judge . Defendant's Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 36], has been fully briefed and is before the court for decision. The briefing focuses primarily on whether Plaintiffs waived any objections to the discovery requests by failing to timely respond and whether Defendant adequately conferred with Plaintiffs before filing the motion. Little attention is given to what, if any, discovery issues remain to be resolved by the court. In light of the parties'..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
FRANK H. McCARTHY, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant's Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 36], has been fully briefed and is before the court for decision. The briefing focuses primarily on whether Plaintiffs waived any objections to the discovery requests by failing to timely respond and whether Defendant adequately conferred with Plaintiffs before filing the motion. Little attention is given to what, if any, discovery issues remain to be resolved by the court.
In light of the parties' agreement that there would be some delay in discovery while efforts to resolve the case were explored, it would be unjust to impose a waiver against Plaintiffs. The court will therefore resolve any remaining discovery issues on the merits. However, the court is not satisfied that the parties have adequately conferred to resolve any remaining issues.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that lead counsel for the parties confer in person or by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve any outstanding discovery issues. This conference need not address any attorney-client privilege issues related to Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Counsel, [Dkt. 25], as the undersigned will not address that area until the District Judge resolves that motion.
This matter is set for hearing on March 27, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., at which time the court will resolve any outstanding discovery disputes.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
