Hicks v. Lane, 1:18-1952-HMH-SVH. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20181214f37
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the court on the motion [ECF No. 24] of defendant Derek Danley ("Danley") to compel Horace Hicks ("Plaintiff") to produce responses to Danley's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production ("Discovery Requests"), which are attached to Danley's motion at ECF No. 24-1 and 24-2. The motion indicates that the Discovery Requests were first served on Plaintiff on October 23, 2018. The motion also indicat
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the court on the motion [ECF No. 24] of defendant Derek Danley ("Danley") to compel Horace Hicks ("Plaintiff") to produce responses to Danley's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production ("Discovery Requests"), which are attached to Danley's motion at ECF No. 24-1 and 24-2. The motion indicates that the Discovery Requests were first served on Plaintiff on October 23, 2018. The motion also indicate..
More
ORDER
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the motion [ECF No. 24] of defendant Derek Danley ("Danley") to compel Horace Hicks ("Plaintiff") to produce responses to Danley's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production ("Discovery Requests"), which are attached to Danley's motion at ECF No. 24-1 and 24-2.
The motion indicates that the Discovery Requests were first served on Plaintiff on October 23, 2018. The motion also indicates that defense counsel sent Plaintiff a letter on December 6, 2018, notifying him of the overdue discovery and requesting Plaintiff to forward his responses. [ECF No. 24]. Danley's motion indicates that Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Discovery Requests. Id.
In light of the foregoing, the court grants Danley's motion to compel. Plaintiff is directed to provide responses to the discovery requests by December 27, 2018. Because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the discovery, any and all objections are deemed waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the court's order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to participate in discovery and/or sanctions, including payment of Danley's attorneys' fees and costs in preparing such motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
