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.

Williams v. Schram

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 9, 2007

CARL E. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS M. SCHRAM, AND FOODLINER, INC., D/B/A QUEST LOGISTICS, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Before the court is defendants' Motion to Compel. (Doc. 25).

Defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff to respond to their interrogatories and requests for production, which were served on November 15, 2006. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so has now expired. The court deems the failure to respond to be an admission of the merits of the motion, pursuant to SDIL-LR 7.1(g).

The court notes that the discovery requests were served a week before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference. However, plaintiff did not object to the requests on that basis. Evidently, plaintiff simply ignored the discovery requests, as he has ignored this motion.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 25) is GRANTED as follows:

* Defendants are granted leave nunc pro tunc to serve interrogatories and requests for production before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference.

* Plaintiff shall fully answer the interrogatories and produce all requested documents on or before February 19, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20070209

© 1992-2007 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.