From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Croskey v. BMW of North America

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 4, 2005
Case No. 02-73747 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 02-73747.

March 4, 2005


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH [128]; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL [129] [130]


There are multiple matters before the Court: Defendant's motion to quash and for a protective order [128]; and Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery [129] [130]. The Court held a status conference on February 28, 2005. At this meeting, the Court found that Plaintiff will be allowed to take seven more depositions and Defendant will produce information it has on Johnson and Thaler. Based on these determinations, the parties' motions are moot. The Court hereby orders that Defendant's motion to quash and for a protective order [128] and Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery [129] [130] are DENIED.


Summaries of

Croskey v. BMW of North America

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mar 4, 2005
Case No. 02-73747 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2005)
Case details for

Croskey v. BMW of North America

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CROSKEY, Plaintiff(s), v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 4, 2005

Citations

Case No. 02-73747 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2005)

Citing Cases

Morris v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline are almost always deemed untimely. See, e.g., Cunningham…