York v. Rudolph et al
Filing
6
ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED DEFENDANTS 4 Motion to Compel, Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK YORK,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-11761
JUDGE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES
v.
FREDDY RUDOLPH and
CHARLES G. LAWSON
TRUCKING, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED DEFENDANTS’ SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF (Doc. Ent. 4)
A.
Background
On January 25, 2013, plaintiff Mark York filed this lawsuit against defendants Freddy
Rudolph and Charles G. Lawson Trucking, Inc. in Wayne County Circuit Court. The facts
underlying the complaint stem from an alleged October 1, 2012 collision. See Doc. Ent. 1-1.
Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses on or about April 19, 2013. Doc. Ent. 1-2.
On the same date, defendants removed the case to this Court. Doc. Ent. 1. On June 11,
2013, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’ affirmative defenses. Doc. Ent. 3.
B.
Pending Motion
Currently before the Court is defendants’ September 27, 2013 motion to compel
discovery responses from plaintiff (Doc. Ent. 4). Attached to this motion are (A) defendants’
July 24, 2013 First Interrogatories to Plaintiff and First Request for Production of Documents to
Plaintiff (Doc. Ent. 4-2); (B) defendants’ July 31, 2013 First Interrogatories to Plaintiff
Regarding Medicare/Medicaid (Doc. Ent. 4-3); (C) defendants’ September 17, 2013 Proposed
Stipulated Order Compelling Discovery Responses from Plaintiff (Doc. Ent. 4-4); and (D)
defendants’ proposed order compelling discovery responses from plaintiff (Doc. Ent. 4-5). See
Index of Exhibits (Doc. Ent. 4-1).
C.
Discussion
“A respondent opposing a motion must file a response, including a brief and supporting
documents then available.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1). “A response to a nondispositive motion
must be filed within 14 days after service of the motion.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2)(B).
Defendants filed the instant, non-dispositive motion on September 27, 2013. Doc. Ent. 4.
Thus, plaintiff’s response to this motion was due on or about Tuesday, October 15, 2013. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), 6(d).
To date, no response has been filed.
D.
Order
Accordingly, defendants’ September 27, 2013 motion to compel discovery responses
from plaintiff (Doc. Ent. 4) is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Plaintiff SHALL produce to the
offices of Kopka, Pinkus, Dolin & Eads, P.L.C., within seven (7) days of the date of this Order,
full and complete responses to the following discovery requests:
1.
Defendants’ First Interrogatories to Plaintiff;
2.
Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff; and
3.
Defendants’ First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Regarding
Medicare/Medicaid.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of
fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order within which to file objections
for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Dated: October 16, 2013
s/Paul J. Komives
PAUL J. KOMIVES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on October
16, 2013, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Relief Case Manager for the
Honorable Paul J. Komives
3
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?