Top Pearl v. COSA Freight, Inc., et al.

Filing 108

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 107 MOTION for Sanctions.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TOP PEARL, LTD ., Plaintiff, v. COSA FREIGHT , INC., et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION H-10-1249 O RDER Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel, for discovery sanctions and civil contempt. Dkt. 107. Plaintiff has shown that James W. Reilly d/b/a Warehouse Management Group (“Reilly”) was served with plaintiff’s post-judgment discovery requests on May 1, 2014 at Reilly’s home address. Dkt. 107, Ex. A. Reilly’s response was due on or before June 1, 2014. Reilly has failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Therefore, the court will GRANT in part plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 107), and ORDER defendant James W. Reilly d/b/a Warehouse Management Group to respond to Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor Top Pearl Ltd.’s First Set of Requests for Production in Aid of Judgment and deliver such response to attorney A. Federico Longoria, III at 7718 Broadway, San Antonio, Texas 78209, by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 15, 2014. If James W. Reilly d/b/a Warehouse Management Group fails to fully respond by this date, then James W. Reilly d/b/a Warehouse Management Group may be held in civil contempt for violating this court’s order, subjecting James W. Reilly d/b/a Warehouse Management Group to additional fines or imprisonment until he fully complies with this order. Plaintiff’s request for civil contempt and discovery sanctions is, therefore, denied without prejudice to refiling if James W. Reilly d/b/a Warehouse Management Group fails to comply with this order. It is so ORDERED. Signed at Houston, Texas on July 22, 2014. ___________________________________ Gray H. Miller United States District Judge 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?