Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MARK R. HORNAK , District Judge . On October 20, 2017, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 134) granting Defendants' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 129) in full and granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (ECF No. 127) in part. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission (on behalf of themselves only) on or before November 3, 2017. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to "produce all documents responsive to Defendants' Rule 34 Requests
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION MARK R. HORNAK , District Judge . On October 20, 2017, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 134) granting Defendants' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 129) in full and granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (ECF No. 127) in part. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission (on behalf of themselves only) on or before November 3, 2017. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to "produce all documents responsive to Defendants' Rule 34 Requests ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARK R. HORNAK, District Judge.
On October 20, 2017, this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 134) granting Defendants' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 129) in full and granting Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (ECF No. 127) in part. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission (on behalf of themselves only) on or before November 3, 2017. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to "produce all documents responsive to Defendants' Rule 34 Requests for Production, including the audio recordings references herein, on or before November 3, 2017." (ECF No. 129 at 5).
On November 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the October 20, 2017 Order. (ECF No. 141). On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. (ECF No. 144).
Now that Plaintiffs appeal has been resolved, the parties are reminded of their obligations to comply with the Court's October 20, 2017 Order. Because the original deadlines have now passed, the Court substitutes the following deadlines for compliance:
Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission on behalf of themselves only on or before April 12, 2018, in a manner otherwise consistent with the instructions set forth in the October 20, 2017 Order.
Plaintiff shall produce all documents responsive to Defendants' Rule 34 Requests for Production, including the audio recordings referenced in the October 20, 2017 Order, on or before April 12, 2018, in a manner otherwise consistent with the instructions set forth in the October 20, 2017 Order.
Because these discovery matters have already been the subject of extensive briefing, including several motions to compel, motions for sanctions, motions for reconsideration, and an interlocutory appeal, the parties are cautioned that any attempt to seek reconsideration of the October 20, 2017 Order will be denied absent the most compelling of circumstances. Moreover, because the parties have now had almost five months since the Order was entered in which to gather the necessary discovery materials, no requests for extension will be granted, absent the most compelling of circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
