Doe v. District of Columbia

Full title: JOHN DOE, a Minor, THROUGH NEXT FRIEND, BOB DOE, Plaintiff, v. THE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Jul 25, 2005

Civil Action No. 03-1789 (GK/JMF) (D.D.C. Jul. 25, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-1789 (GK/JMF).

July 25, 2005

ORDER

JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge

This case was referred to me by Judge Kessler to resolve all discovery disputes. At the July 15, 2005 hearing before Judge Kessler, plaintiffs and Associates for Renewal in Education ("ARE") represented to the court that, if the settlement agreement between them is approved by the court, plaintiffs will no longer seek to compel discovery from ARE. Accordingly, it is, hereby, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Associates for Renewal in Education, Inc. to Produce Documents [#141] and Associates for Renewal in Education, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [#158] are DENIED without prejudice to renew them in the event that the settlement between plaintiffs and Associates for Renewal in Education is not approved by the court.

SO ORDERED.