NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. FRANKLIN MILLS ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 13-0038. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150527795
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: May 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER R. BARCLAY SURRICK , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Unsigned Answers to Interrogatories and Unsigned Objections to Discovery Requests, Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Full and Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Defendant (ECF No. 21); Defendant's Motion to Compel and to Determine Sufficiency of Answers and Objections to Requests for Admissions (ECF No. 23); Plaintiff's Motio
Summary: ORDER R. BARCLAY SURRICK , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Unsigned Answers to Interrogatories and Unsigned Objections to Discovery Requests, Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Full and Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Defendant (ECF No. 21); Defendant's Motion to Compel and to Determine Sufficiency of Answers and Objections to Requests for Admissions (ECF No. 23); Plaintiff's Motion..
More
ORDER
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Unsigned Answers to Interrogatories and Unsigned Objections to Discovery Requests, Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Full and Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents by Defendant (ECF No. 21); Defendant's Motion to Compel and to Determine Sufficiency of Answers and Objections to Requests for Admissions (ECF No. 23); Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order Against Oral Deposition of Three (3) In-House Counsel (ECF No. 24); and all responses thereto, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Unsigned Answers (ECF No. 21) is DENIED as MOOT.
2. Defendant's Motion to Compel and to Determine Sufficiency of Answers (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED as to Attorneys Abel and Reeve and DENIED as to Attorney Anthony.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
