Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 15-419 WES. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Rhode Island
Number: infdco20171218b68
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH , Chief Judge . This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 129) and Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 144). In the former, Plaintiffs complained that Defendants Dawn Linkletter Griffin, Sharon Linkletter, Michael Linkletter, Laura Linkletter Rich, and Dennis Linkletter (collectively, "Linkletter Defendants") had not timely responded to certain of Plaintiffs' discovery requests. However, because the Linkletter Defendants answer
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH , Chief Judge . This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 129) and Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 144). In the former, Plaintiffs complained that Defendants Dawn Linkletter Griffin, Sharon Linkletter, Michael Linkletter, Laura Linkletter Rich, and Dennis Linkletter (collectively, "Linkletter Defendants") had not timely responded to certain of Plaintiffs' discovery requests. However, because the Linkletter Defendants answere..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 129) and Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 144).
In the former, Plaintiffs complained that Defendants Dawn Linkletter Griffin, Sharon Linkletter, Michael Linkletter, Laura Linkletter Rich, and Dennis Linkletter (collectively, "Linkletter Defendants") had not timely responded to certain of Plaintiffs' discovery requests. However, because the Linkletter Defendants answered these requests soon after Plaintiffs' filed their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED as moot.
And because the Linkletter Defendants served their requests prior to conferring pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and while the Linkletter Defendants' had a motion to dismiss pending, their Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (noting that imposition of attorneys' fees for resisting discovery request inappropriate where "reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action" (brackets and quotations omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
