UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 16, 2009
JEFFREY MILLAR, PLAINTIFF,
THE LAKIN LAW FIRM, P.C., LAKINCHAPMAN, LLC, AND BRADLEY M. LAKIN, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Supplement (Doc. 97) their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (Doc. 83). Specifically, Defendants seek to have the Court consider certain discovery elicited throughout Plaintiff's 2006 divorce proceedings in St. Charles County, Missouri, in its ruling on the partial summary judgment motion. Such discovery includes Plaintiff's response to interrogatories, Plaintiff's response to a request to produce, and Plaintiff's deposition transcript. It is worth noting that Defendants obtained these documents after District Judge Carol E. Jackson of the Eastern District of Missouri denied Plaintiff's motion to quash. See Millar v. The Lakin Law Firm, Case No. 09-mc-460-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2009). Defendants argue, inter alia, that this discovery further indicates the nonexistence of a written contract governing Plaintiff's employment, including terms of compensation and/or bonuses. Plaintiff contends that any statements harmful to his instant case are equivocal at best and may be properly explained once placed in context.
Being fully advised of the premises, the Court GRANTS the instant motion (Doc. 97). The Court will weigh the meaning and relevance of the supplemental documentation alongside the partial summary judgment motion's full briefing and any other exhibits attached thereto, including the transcripts of Bradley Lakin, Steve Schweizer, and Robert Schmeiders's impending depositions. (See Doc. 102).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.