Hunt v. 21st Mortgage Corporation
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 12 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant; As a result of the hearing on July 8, 2018, the court hereby ORDERS as set out within; The scheduling order entered on November 5, 2012, is AMENDED to extend the discovery cutoff to August 2, 2013. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 7/10/13. (SAC )
FILED
2013 Jul-10 PM 04:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES HUNT,
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Plaintiff,
v.
21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-AR-2697-S
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The motion to compel filed by plaintiff, Charles Hunt, was
heard on July 8, 2013.
As a result of what was said by counsel and
by the court, all of which was recorded by the court reporter, it
is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
The separate suit in this court entitled Amelia Hunt v.
21st Mortgage Corporation, which was terminated on October 19, 2012,
is something of which this court can take judicial knowledge, but
unless
the
parties
in
the
above-styled
case
agree
to
the
admissibility of evidence acquired in that case, the right of
access to discovery materials in this case will depend entirely on
the procedures in this case.
2.
The
motion
to
compel
insofar
as
it
refers
to
Interrogatories Nos. 16, 17, and 23 is MOOT.
3.
taken.
Defendant’s objection to Interrogatory No. 25 is well
Unless
plaintiff’s
consented
and
neighbors
to
being
until
and
plaintiff
relatives
contacted
and
designates
who
may
called
on
the
names
of
or may
not have
their
cellular
telephones,
plaintiff’s
motion
to
compel
a
response
to
Interrogatory No. 25 is DENIED.
4.
are
well
Defendant’s objections to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8
taken.
Accordingly,
plaintiff’s
motion
to
compel
responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 are, except to the extent
already answered, DENIED.
5.
With respect to Interrogatory No. 2, defendant having
stated that it “will comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(5)(A)”, it shall do so within fourteen (14) days. Otherwise,
defendant’s objections to Interrogatory No. 2 are well taken, and
plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.
6.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a complete response to
Interrogatory No. 25 is DENIED, but will be reconsidered when and
if plaintiff furnishes defendant the names of plaintiff’s neighbors
and relatives who may or may not have consented to being contacted
and called on their cellular telephones.
The scheduling order entered on November 5, 2012, is hereby
AMENDED to extend the discovery cutoff from July 19, 2013, to
August 2, 2013.
DONE this 10th day of July, 2013.
_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?