Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TWITTY v. STEPP

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


August 2, 2005.

ANDRE J. TWITTY, Plaintiffs,
v.
E.A. STEPP, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are pending motions. Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion to delay recommendations on defense motions to dismiss pending additional discovery (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED. The arguments before the Court do not require a significant exchange of information.

Also pending is defendants' motion for a protective order (Doc. No. 51). For good cause shown, and following an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, a protective order will be entered when justice requires to protect a person subject to discovery from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Because the defendants have not described an effort to resolve this dispute without court action, this motion (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED as premature.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20050802

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.