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)

Download PDF
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?