Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de79> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de79 RegisterActionDate "2013-04-09" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de79 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Daniel G. Martin: Motion hearing held and continued to 4/23/2013 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff appeared by telephone. Defendant's motion to amend 78 is granted. The motion for extension of time 76 is granted in part. The parties are ordered to meet on 4/18/2013 at 10:00 a.m. in this Court's courtroom to resolve the two remaining issues noticed in Defendant's motion. Plaintiff is directed to organize all of her produced documents to respond to Defendant's specific document requests. Plaintiff is also directed to clarify her responses to Defendant's requests for admission. Plaintiff suggested at the hearing that Defendant had a duty to investigate the facts underlying its requests for admission. However, requests for admission are not a discovery device. They are a means for allowing a party to obtain admissions on the record. U.S. S.E.C. v. Nutmeg Group, LLC, 285 F.R.D. 403, 405 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Plaintiff is advised that if she does not admit a specific request, her "answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why [she] cannot truthfully admit or deny it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Parties are again reminded that discovery closed in this case on 4/2/2013. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/09/2013)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de79 AdministrativeID "79" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de79 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de76 @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de79 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-04560_de78 @default.