MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Richard Pech
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Thomas E. Morgan, III
PROOF OF SERVICE:
ANALYSIS
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
This motion was timely served and filed on June 29, 2019, prior to the July 25, 2019 deadline to which the parties agreed. Pech Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. 7.
However, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff did not allow Defendant sufficient time to serve supplemental responses as part of the meet and confer process. The parties agreed that the deadline to file this motion would be July 25, 2019. Yet, Plaintiff filed this motion on June 27, 2019—nearly a month before the deadline to file this motion.
As Defendant’s counsel represents, he was out of town during the June 17, 2019 demanded by Plaintiff’s counsel. Furman Decl., ¶ 14. The opposition, however, does not indicate that supplemental responses have in fact been served, as Defen
Hearing Date
September 03, 2019
Type
Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Richard Pech
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Thomas E. Morgan, III
PROOF OF SERVICE:
ANALYSIS
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
This motion was timely served and filed on June 29, 2019, prior to the July 25, 2019 deadline to which the parties agreed. Pech Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. 7.
However, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff did not allow Defendant sufficient time to serve supplemental responses as part of the meet and confer process. The parties agreed that the deadline to file this motion would be July 25, 2019. Yet, Plaintiff filed this motion on June 27, 2019—nearly a month before the deadline to file this motion.
As Defendant’s counsel represents, he was out of town during the June 17, 2019 demanded by Plaintiff’s counsel. Furman Decl., ¶ 14. The opposition, however, does not indicate that supplemental responses have in fact been served, as Defen