Rolyn Companies, Inc. v. Southern Plate Glass, Inc. et al

Filing 123

ORDER striking unauthorized reply (Doc.89), and denying as moot 91 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 6/16/2014. (Smith, Thomas)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION ROLYN COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:13-cv-358-Orl-28TBS SOUTHERN PLATE GLASS, INC., H & B GLASS CONTRACTING, INC., OLDCASTLE BUILDING ENVELOPE, INC., Defendants. ______________________________________ ORDER Defendant Southern Plate Glass, Inc., filed a motion to compel better answers to interrogatories from Plaintiff Rolyn companies, Inc. on May 22, 2014. (Doc. 85). Plaintiff filed its notice of compliance/response to the motion on June 5, 2014. (Doc. 86). On June 9, 2014, Defendant Southern Plate Glass filed a response (“Response”) to Plaintiff’s notice of compliance/response (Doc. 89), and Plaintiff filed its motion to strike the Response (“Motion”) (Doc. 91). Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(a) and (b) provide for the filing of motions and responses. The Rule states that “[n]o party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed to the motion or response allowed in (a) and (b) unless the Court grants leave.” M.D. Fla. Rule 3.01c). The Court construes the Response (Doc. 89) as an unauthorized reply which is STRICKEN. The Response having been stricken, the Motion (Doc. 91) is DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on June 16, 2014. Copies to all Counsel -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?