Smith v. City of Omaha et al

Filing 71

The defendants' stipulations (Filing No. 70 in 8:12CV330; Filing No. 72 in 8:12CV331) are adopted. The defendants' motions (Filing No. 66 in 8:12CV330; Filing No. 68 in 8:12CV331) are denied as moot. Member Cases: 8:12-cv-00330-JFB-TDT, 8:12-cv-00331-JFB-TDTOrdered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TIFFANY SMITH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
subdivision existing and organized
in the State of Nebraska; OMAHA
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALEX
HAYES, Chief of Police, individually
and in his official capacity;
BENJAMIN EDWARDS, AAREN
ANDERSON, and JERALD
SWANSON, Omaha Police Officers,
individually and in their official
capacities; DON KLEINE, Douglas
County Attorney, individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE,
Douglas County Attorney,
individually and in his/her official
capacity; DOUGLAS COUNTY, a
political subdivision existing and
organized in the State of Nebraska;
and JOHN DOES 1-100,

8:12CV330
ORDER

Defendants.
______________________________
TIFFANY SMITH, as parent and
natural guardian of Deante Smith,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
subdivision existing and organized
in the State of Nebraska; OMAHA
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALEX
HAYES, Chief of Police, individually
and in his official capacity;
BENJAMIN EDWARDS, AAREN
ANDERSON, and JERALD
SWANSON, Omaha Police Officers,
individually and in their official
capacities; DON KLEINE, Douglas
County Attorney, individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE,
Douglas County Attorney,

8:12CV331
ORDER

individually and in his/her official
capacity; DOUGLAS COUNTY, a
political subdivision existing and
organized in the State of Nebraska;
and JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery
(Filing No. 66 in 8:12CV330; Filing No. 68 in 8:12CV331). The defendants sought to
compel the plaintiff to engage in discovery by answering interrogatories and responding
to requests for production of documents previously served. On January 28, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Serving Discovery (Filing No. 69 in 8:12CV330; Filing No. 71 in
8:12CV331).

Thereafter, on January 30, 2014, the defendants filed a stipulation

indicating the motions to compel are moot (Filing No. 70 in 8:12CV330; Filing No. 72 in
8:12CV331). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
The defendants’ stipulations (Filing No. 70 in 8:12CV330; Filing No. 72 in
8:12CV331) are adopted. The defendants’ motions (Filing No. 66 in 8:12CV330; Filing
No. 68 in 8:12CV331) are denied as moot.

Dated this 30th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

2