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.

Burk v. Steve & Barry's Illinois

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


April 14, 2008

SEAN BURK, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, MIRASOL BURK, AND RYAN TORPHY, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND JOHN GONZALES, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
STEVE & BARRY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, AND STOLZ MANAGEMENT OF DELAWARE, INC., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Before the court is defendant Steve & Barrys Illinois, LLC's Motion to Reconsider this Court's Granting of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. (Doc. 34).

On February 15, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel in which they asked the court to deny defendant's objections to their first set of interrogatories and requests for production, and to order defendant to respond to their second set of discovery requests. See, Doc. 29. On that same date, the court granted defendant's motion for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiff's outstanding requests. See, Doc. 30. Defendant did not file a response to the motion to compel. The court granted the motion to compel on March 11, 2008. See, Doc. 33. The instant motion followed.

Defendant explains in its motion to reconsider that it believed that the motion to compel was rendered moot by the order granting its motion for extension. Therefore, although it had prepared a response to the motion to compel, it did not file same.

There is no basis in the record for defendant to have concluded that the order granting the motion for extension somehow rendered the motion to compel moot. Plaintiffs served two distinct sets of discovery requests, months apart. Defendant responded to the first set in November, 2007, before the second set was served and, obviously, before the motion for extension was filed. The motion for extension asked for an extension to respond to the second set of discovery requests only. An extension of time to respond to the second set of discovery requests would in no way moot a motion to compel answers to the first set of discovery requests.

The court deemed the failure to respond to the motion to compel to be an admission of the merits of the motion. SDIL-LR 7.1. Defendant has not shown good cause for its failure to respond.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, defendant Steve & Barrys Illinois, LLC's Motion to Reconsider this Court's Granting of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. 34) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20080414

© 1992-2008 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.