IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 8, 2007
CARL E. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
THOMAS M. SCHRAM AND FOODLINER, INC., D/B/A QUEST LOGISTICS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
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
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.