Direct Line Corporation v. Carrington et al

Filing 56

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference 52 is Denied as Moot. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 12/9/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

Direct Line Corporation v. Carrington et al

Doc. 56

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DIRECT LINE CORPORATION Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL L. CARRINGTON and JOHN DOE(s) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Motion DENIED as Moot.

No. 3:10-00423 Judge Trauger

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE Comes now the Plaintiff, Direct Line Corporation ("DLC"), by and through counsel, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for a status conference to address pending motions in this matter, necessary amendments to the current scheduling order, and ongoing damage to the Plaintiff. Grounds for this Motion are as follows: (1) Seven months have passed since DLC filed its Complaint against the Defendant,

M ichael L. Carrington ("Carrington") and unknown John Doe(s) on April 28, 2010 (Docket Entry 1). During this time, DLC's damages have increased substantially and continue to grow on a daily basis. (2) There are currently three substantive motions pending before the Court that need

to be addressed before the parties can move forward. First, both parties have filed pleadings related to Carrington's October 22, 2010 Rule 72 Appeal of Magistrate Knowles' Order compelling Carrington to provide DLC with his discovery responses, and it appears no other pleadings are necessary (Docket Entries 36, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, and 49). Secondly, on October 26, 2010, Magistrate Knowles issued a Report and Recommendation that Carrington's Motion

Dockets.Justia.com