Brinegar v. Doyle

Filing 7

ORDER terminating without prejudice 4 Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 5/5/2017. (CAB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION ANGELA MARIE BRINEGAR, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 5:17-cv-190-Oc-30PRL SHEILA FAYE DOYLE Defendant. ORDER This personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident was removed to this Court on April 21, 2017, from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida. (Doc. 1). Prior to removal, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses. (Doc. 4). Defendant’s motion seeks to compel answers to discovery requests, specifically answers to interrogatories. Defendant’s motion recites that the parties had agreed upon a one-week extension, but that extension expired and the responses were not provided. Because the motion was filed as part of the proceeding in state court it doesn’t comply with the requirements of this Court’s Local Rules. For example, it doesn’t comply with the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g) and doesn’t appear to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.01(a). Also, to the extent necessary, it may need to comply with Rule 3.04. Lastly, it’s unclear whether the timing of the motion and request for discovery itself is consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). As such, the motion is due to be terminated, without prejudice to Defendant to seek appropriate relief consistent with this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 5, 2017. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties -2-

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?