Schwitzer v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA et al
Filing
26
ORDER - 20 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice as premature; 22 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice as premature; 23 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants shall have up through and including November 30, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/16/12. (alvsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01367-RBJ-MJW
JAMES J. SCHWITZER and
TAMMY L. SCHWITZER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Discovery Requests (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants
shall have up through and including November 30, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs’
discovery requests.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Compel Defendant’s [sic]
Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Admissions Requests and For Appropriate
Sanctions (Docket No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Compel Defendant’s [sic]
Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Admissions Requests and For Appropriate
Sanctions (Docket No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
Date: November 16, 2012
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?