IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 5, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
SHANRIE COMPANY, DAN SHEILS, NETEMEYER ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., AND THOUVENOT, WADE & MOERCHEN, INC., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
Now before the Court is an appeal, filed by Defendants Shanrie Co. and Dan Sheils ("Defendants") pursuant to Local Rule of the Southern District of Illinois 73.1, of United States Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson's April 20, 2006 Order. (Doc. 75.) In that Order, Judge Wilkerson granted the government's request for an extension of time to conduct additional discovery (Doc. 58), basing his ruling exclusively on Defendants' failure to timely object to the government's request. (Doc. 67.) Defendants now premise their appeal on several substantive issues unrelated to Judge Wilkerson's holding (namely, that the discovery the government seeks is irrelevant, overburdensome, and duplicative).
The Court denies Defendants' appeal. Local Rule 7.1(g) of the Southern District of Illinois provides that "[f]ailure to file a timely response to a motion may, in the court's discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion." S.D. Ill. Local Rule 7.1(g). Here, Defendants failed to timely object to the government's motion for additional time. On this basis, Judge Wilkerson granted the motion. (Doc. 67.) This decision was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court declines to set aside Judge Wilkerson's Order. See S.D. Ill. Local Rule 73.1(a) ("A District Judge of the court shall reconsider the matter and shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.") Defendants' appeal is thereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.