The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge
Currently pending before the Court are a Motion for Emergency Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 59), a Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendant (Doc. 63), and a Motion for Expedited Trial Date filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 66).
Motion for Emergency Interrogatories and Motion for Extension of Time
In Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Interrogatories filed May 3, 2010, Plaintiff states that he has been made aware that Defendant Feinerman suffered a stroke and is "in a hospital bed." He proposes twelve "emergency" interrogatories. In a response filed May 6, 2010, Defendant Feinerman states that he did suffer a stroke and reported that he is medically unable to participate in the defense of the case at this time. Defendant Feinerman asks that Plaintiff's motion for emergency interrogatories be denied (Doc. 60).
On May 28, 2010, Defendant Feinerman filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 63) asking the Court to grant him thirty additional days in which to respond to the Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories. Defendant Feinerman states that he is still recovering from his recent stroke-related hospitalization.
On June 28, 2010, Defendant Feinerman filed his responses to Plaintiff's requests for admissions and to Plaintiff's interrogatories (Doc. 65). As such, the requests of both parties have now been satisfied. That is, Plaintiff has received responses to his interrogatories, and Defendant had additional time to respond to the discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Interrogatories (Doc. 59) and Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 63) are found to be MOOT. Motion for Expedited Trial Date
In this motion filed July 9, 2010, Plaintiff asks for a trial date as soon as possible. He indicates that he still suffers from the medical conditions related to this action, and Defendant Feinerman has a serious medical condition as well. In light of these medical problems, Plaintiff asks for a trial as soon as possible.
The motion is GRANTED. The Court shares Plaintiff's concerns and seeks resolution of this matter as soon as possible. The action is currently on appeal to the Seventh Circuit of the Court's order dismissing two defendants (Doc. 52). The Court, however, retains jurisdiction of the matter because the appeal is taken from an unappealable interlocutory order. Taylor-Holmes v. Office of the Cook Cnty. Pub. Guardian, 503, F.3d 607,609 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court will enter a scheduling order forthwith. A trial date will be set by United States District Judge Michael J. Reagan.
In summary, the Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Interrogatories (Doc. 59) and Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 63) are found to be MOOT. Plaintiff's Motion for an Expedited Trial Date (Doc. 66) is GRANTED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...