CHAMBERS v. PERDUE et al
| TONY E. CHAMBERS |
| BEVERLY PERDUE, MACK SIMMONS, DONALD BURNS, SANDRA VAMPER, KAY EVANS and ROGER REYNOLDS |
| 1:2010cv00315 |
| April 23, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Moore |
| UNASSIGNED |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 7/17/2013, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Entry 56 ) is DENIED. FURTHER that, on or before July 24, 2013, Defenda nt shall either: 1) file a Notice indicating that it does not seek cost-shifting under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B); or 2) serve Plaintiff with a statement of reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in opposing Plaintiff 's Motion to Compel. Failure by Defendant to comply with this order will result in denial of any cost-shifting. FURTHER that, if Defendant timely serves Plaintiff with a statement of its reasonable expenses, on or before August 7, 2013 , Plaintiff shall file either: 1) a Notice indicating his agreement to pay the claimed expenses; or 2) a memorandum of no more than five pages explaining why his Motion to Compel was substantially justified or why other circumstances make an awar d of expenses unjust, as well as any basis on which Plaintiff contests the reasonableness of the claimed expenses. Failure by Plaintiff to comply with this order will result in the Court ordering, upon the filing of a Notice by Defendant of its reaso nable expenses as contained in the statement it served upon Plaintiff, the payment of such expenses by Plaintiff. FURTHER, that, on or before August 21, 2013, Defendant shall file a response of no more than five pages to any memorandum timely filed by Plaintiff contesting cost-shifting. Failure by Defendant to comply with this order will result in the denial of any cost-shifting. FURTHER that, on or before August 28, 2013, Plaintiff may file a reply of no more than three pages to any response timely filed by Defendant regarding cost-shifting. FURTHER, that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Discovery Plan (Docket Entry 55 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. (Daniel, J)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
