Lipsey v. Reddy et al
Filing
69
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 67 Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Interrogatories, Set One, as Unnecessary, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/26/18. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. REDDY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AS
UNNECESSARY
(Doc. No. 67)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion in opposition to Defendants’
16
Interrogatories, Set One, filed on September 10, 2018. (Doc. No. 67.) Plaintiff seeks a
17
protective order and sanctions, arguing that the interrogatories are improper and untimely.
18
Defendants filed a response on September 25, 2018, agreeing that the interrogatories are
19
untimely. (Doc. No. 68.) In support, defense counsel declares that counsel misunderstood the
20
Court’s order staying non-exhaustion related discovery, and withdraws the interrogatories.
21
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, as unnecessary. Plaintiff is not
22
required to respond to Defendants Interrogatories, Set One, served on August 10, 2018.
23
Sanctions are not appropriate, as the mistake was a reasonable misinterpretation, not bad faith.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 26, 2018
/s/ Barbara
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?