Hollingshead v. Mobile County Personnel Board et al

Filing 46

ORDER, 44 Objections to Discovery Requests (Docs. 42 & 43 ) are SUSTAINED. Plf's 45 Motion for Subpoena is DENIED as set out, & Plf is directed not to serve any further discovery requests on dft or seek further discovery by Court order until the Court has issued an opinion on dft's motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 10/15/2012. (copy mailed to Plf on 10/15/12) (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOROTHY HOLLINGSHEAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BOARD,
et al.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00070-CG-N
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Despite the Court’s instructions to the plaintiff in its Order dated August 9, 2012
(doc. 38)1, plaintiff has filed and served two additional discovery requests upon the
defendant (docs. 42 and 43) as well as a motion for a subpoena (doc. 45) prior to the
Court’s adjudication of the pending motion to dismiss (docs. 32-33). Defendant filed
objections to the two discovery requests on October 8, 2012 (doc. 44) and those
objections are hereby SUSTAINED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s
motion for a subpoena is hereby DENIED and plaintiff is directed not to serve any
further discovery requests on the defendant or seek further discovery by Court order until
the Court has issued an opinion on defendant’s motion to dismiss.
DONE this 15th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Plaintiff has been advised that defendant’s motion to dismiss “is based solely
upon issues of law and, therefore, does not implicate or involve any factual issue which
might otherwise required discovery.” (Doc. 38)