IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 7, 2007
WILLIAM CANNON, #A-11015, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT HUGHES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel or alternatively motion for default judgment (Doc. 229) and Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' response to plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 232). Plaintiff's motion to compel requests that the Court order Defendants to comply with Plaintiff's two discovery requests dated February 3, 2006. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's discovery requests were 1) untimely and 2) that this issue has already been considered by the Court. The Court disagrees.
According to the Court's November 8, 2005 trial practice and schedule, discovery was due by February 15, 2006. Plaintiff made his request on February 3, 2006. Although Defendants may not have been able to produce the discovery by the deadline, Plaintiff's request was timely.
In addition, Defendants are incorrect in their assertion that the Court has addressed this matter previously. As Plaintiff points out, the orders Defendants refer to in support of their allegation that this issue has already been addressed deal with Plaintiff's motion for court to order expert witnesses (Doc. 219), which involves an entirely separate issue.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 229) and DIRECTS Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's two requests for discovery dated February 3, 2006 no later than November 21, 2007. In light of this Order, the Court FINDS AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion for default (Doc. 229) and Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' response to plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 232).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.