Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 12 of
12
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 RegisterActionDate "2020-07-06" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: On defendant's motion to compel discovery answers (doc. # 47 ), defendant asserts that plaintiff's answers to written discovery are overdue. In early March 2020, in a joint status report filed by defendant, the parties reported that plaintiff's answers to written discovery were overdue as was her Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure (doc. # 30 ). At the time, the Court focused on the 26(a)(1) disclosure (which was the subject of a defense motion to compel (doc. # 27 )) and on the fact that plaintiff's counsel was not sufficiently responsive to defense counsel to allow compliance with the Court's earlier order denying that motion to compel without prejudice so that the parties could confer under Rule 26(f) (doc. # 31 ). The Court granted the motion to compel the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure, and plaintiff complied (docs. # 31 , 32 ). Then, by operation of orders entered in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the discovery cutoff in this matter was extended to 7/24/20 (doc. # 39 ). After another joint status report (doc. # 42 ), the Court extended the discovery cutoff to 9/15/20 at the parties' request (doc. # 43 ). In that same status report, on 5/12/20, the parties reported that plaintiff still had not responded to defendant's written discovery requests, and that the parties had agreed that the responses would be due 6/15/20 (doc. # 42 ). In defendant's most recent motion to compel (doc. # 47 ), defendant recites that it and plaintiff agreed to a two-week extension from 6/15/20, and that plaintiff did not serve the responses as scheduled on 7/1/20, necessitating the instant motion. Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to the motion to compel, stating any reason why the motion should not be granted and why the magistrate judge should not recommend to Judge Feinerman that he dismiss the case for want of prosecution in view of plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with deadlines imposed by the Court, the parties' agreements between themselves, and operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this case, in view of the instant motion being the second occasion on which a motion to compel is being litigated and adjudicated as a result. The response is due by 4 p.m. 7/9/20. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 07/06/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 AdministrativeID "49" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de27 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de30 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de31 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de32 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de39 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de42 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de43 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-04064_de47 @default.