Adcock et al v. Resurgent Capital Services

Filing 45

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Compel; denying 35 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/14/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES E. ADCOCK, ET AL.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
No. 4:11-cv-00832 KGB

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES
AS SERVICER FOR LVNV FUNDING, LLC

llEFENUANTS

ORDER

The plaintiffs have filed two discovery motions, Motion for Order Compelling Discovery
(Dkt. No. 34) and Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Request for Admission (Dkt. No.
35). The defendants have responded. (Dkt. Nos. 37 & 38).
The Court has carefully reviewed the plaintiffs' motions and the defendants' responses.
The plaintiffs waited nearly a month after service of defendants' discovery responses and
objections to move to compel, and their motions come after an extended period of discovery has
closed. 1 Moreover, the plaintiffs state little in their motions to compel by way of argument or
authority to support their position.
The plaintiffs' Motion for Order Compelling Discovery (Dkt. No. 34) and Motion for
Order Compelling Responses to Request for Admission (Dkt. No. 35) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2012.

Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

1

The Court's Final Scheduling Order states that all discovery motions must be filed
sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline.