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)

Download PDF
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

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?