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


June 8, 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: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 32.) Defendants filed the motion to dismiss (Doc. 32) because Plaintiff had failed to answer or object to Defendants' written discovery requests by the agreed upon deadline. Although the Court certainly does not condone such failures to respond, it appears that the failure was due in large part to a change of counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiffs' new counsel has now provided Defendants with answers to Defendants' interrogatories and responses to Defendants' request to produce. Because Plaintiff has now responded to Defendants' request for discovery, dismissal at this point would be too harsh. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Doc. 32.) However, the Court wishes to remind Plaintiff and his new counsel that they must strictly adhere to all deadlines in the future. If Plaintiff fails to meet deadlines or request an extension from the Court in the future, Plaintiff may face sanctions by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R Herndon United States District Judge

20070608

© 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.