Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roman Ortiz v. Cox

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 28, 2011

ROMAN ORTIZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COX, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

On April 14, 2011, defendant filed a motion to compel. Defendant contends that on February 7, 2011, he propounded discovery on plaintiff. In response, plaintiff produced some documents, but did not provide written responses to the requests for production. Defendant further asserts that plaintiff responded to the interrogatories but did not verify them. Defendant seeks an order to compel and sanctions for costs associated with filing the motion to compel.

On April 26, 2011, the court issued an order to show cause why defendant's motion should not be granted. Plaintiff filed a statement on June 29, 2011. Plaintiff asserts that he has attempted to comply with the discovery requests, submits a verification of his discovery responses and attaches written responses to defendant's requests for production.

The court, thus, finds that an order to compel is unnecessary in light of plaintiff's submission. The court further finds that sanctions are not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to compel and request for sanctions are denied.

20110728

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.