From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karasik v. City of Myrtle Beach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Aug 29, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11-cv-00828-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11-cv-00828-RBH

08-29-2012

Lynn Karasik, Plaintiff, v. City of Myrtle Beach, Defendant.

Peter L. Hearn, Sr., Federal ID #6463 Hearn & Hearn, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff William A. Bryan, Jr. Collins & Lacy, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant


DISCOVERY CONSENT ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery August 22, 2012 pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Request for Production of Document.

Defendant has now responded to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, therefore, this Motion appears moot. The parties agree Plaintiff reserves the right to refile this Motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ordered Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff may refile this Motion if necessary.

_________________

The Honorable R. Bryan Harwell

Presiding Judge U.S. District Court

Florence Division

Columbia, South Carolina

Dated: August 29, 2012

WE CONSENT:

_________________

Peter L. Hearn, Sr., Federal ID #6463

Hearn & Hearn, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

________________

William A. Bryan, Jr.

Collins & Lacy, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant


Summaries of

Karasik v. City of Myrtle Beach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
Aug 29, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11-cv-00828-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Karasik v. City of Myrtle Beach

Case Details

Full title:Lynn Karasik, Plaintiff, v. City of Myrtle Beach, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 29, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11-cv-00828-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 2012)