From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rathinam v. Ashok Spiritual Healing Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Feb 26, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-103 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-103

02-26-2015

JEYAKUMAR RATHINAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASHOK SPIRITUAL HEALING CENTER, Defendant.

Counsel of Record Annamalai Annamalai a/k/a Sri Selvam Siddhar at her/his last known address


ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING INTERVENING DEFENDANT WHITAKER'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE "RECENT" AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE DEFENDANT THAT GAVE RISE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (Doc. #21); ORDERING PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TO PROVIDE THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AND GIVING WHITAKER SEVEN (7) DAYS TO RESPOND TO THE COURT

This matter is before the Court on a Motion To Compel filed by Intervening Defendant Whitaker ("Whitaker"). (Doc. #21.) The Plaintiffs represented by Counsel have responded opposing the Motion To Compel. The time has run and no other Party has responded. This matter is, therefore, ripe for decision.

Whitaker seeks to compel Counsel for Plaintiffs to provide a copy of the "recent" agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the complaint (the "Agreement"). Whitaker's Counsel has represented to the Court that his claims may be dismissed depending upon what the Agreement states.

The Plaintiffs represented by Counsel argue that Whitaker's Motion To Compel should be denied because it disregards the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #23.) More specifically, the Plaintiffs represented by Counsel argue that there has been no order by the Court requiring discovery before a Rule 26(f) conference has been conducted. They also argue that the request for production was improperly served.

Whitaker has provided good cause for seeing the Agreement. Further, entry of this Order will negate the opposition asserted by the Plaintiffs represented by Counsel.

Therefore, Counsel for Plaintiffs is given until not later than seven (7) days following entry of this Order to provide a copy of the "recent" agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the complaint to Whitaker. Further, Whitaker is given seven (7) days following receipt of the copy of the "recent" agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the complaint to respond to the Court with either a dismissal of his claims or opposition to the pending Motion To Dismiss.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this 26th day of February, 2015.

s/Thomas M. Rose

THOMAS M. ROSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Annamalai Annamalai a/k/a Sri Selvam Siddhar at her/his last known address


Summaries of

Rathinam v. Ashok Spiritual Healing Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Feb 26, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-103 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015)
Case details for

Rathinam v. Ashok Spiritual Healing Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:JEYAKUMAR RATHINAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASHOK SPIRITUAL HEALING CENTER…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: Feb 26, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-103 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015)