United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
August 2, 2005.
ANDRE J. TWITTY, Plaintiffs,
E.A. STEPP, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge
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
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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.