FutureFuel Chemical Company v. National Biodiesel Board

Filing 69

ORDER granting 47 Motion for Reconsideration of the 46 Order denying Motion to Compel; and ordering deft National Biodiesel Board to fully respond to the interrogs and requests for production of docs specified in the motion to compel within 30 days. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/3/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BATESVILLE DIVISION
FUTUREFUEL CHEMICAL COMPANY
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 1:09CV00023 BSM

NATIONAL BIODIESEL BOARD

DEFENDANT
ORDER

On November 12, 2010, plaintiff Futurefuel Chemical Company (“Futurefuel”)
moved for reconsideration of the November 2, 2010, order denying its motion to compel.
Upon consideration of that motion and defendant National Biodiesel Board’s (“the Board”)
response, an order was entered directing the Board to respond to Futurefuel’s allegation that
it misrepresented the terms of a proposed settlement offer in an attempt to defeat
Futurefuel’s motion to compel. [Doc. No. 49]. Futurefuel’s motion for reconsideration was
held in abeyance while the parties briefed the issue. After reviewing the Board’s response
and Futurefuel’s reply, it is hereby found that, upon reconsideration, Futurefuel’s motion to
compel [Doc. No. 24] should be granted.
Defendant National Biodiesel Board is hereby ordered to fully respond to the
interrogatories and requests for production of documents specified in Futurefuel’s motion
to compel within thirty days. All objections submitted by the Board are hereby overruled,
and Futurefuel’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 47] is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2011.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE