From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smithson v. Amerada Hess Corporation

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Apr 10, 2008
Civ. No. 06-00624 MCA/RLP (D.N.M. Apr. 10, 2008)

Opinion

Civ. No. 06-00624 MCA/RLP.

April 10, 2008


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel No. 2. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant submitted an inadequate privilege log in support of its contention that documents requested by Plaintiffs to be produced were covered by attorney client privilege and work product immunity. The Motion to Compel will be denied because it is untimely.

As stated in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case [Doc. 130]: "Pursuant to D.N.M.LR Civ. 26.6, a party has 20 days in which to file a motion to compel after the responses are served or objections are waived." Plaintiffs state that they submitted their requests for production on November 12, 2007. Documents were produced on January 9, 2008 and the privilege log was produced on January 18, 2008. The Motion to Compel was not filed until February 20, 2008 — well past the 20-day deadline.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel No. 2 [Doc. 106] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smithson v. Amerada Hess Corporation

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Apr 10, 2008
Civ. No. 06-00624 MCA/RLP (D.N.M. Apr. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Smithson v. Amerada Hess Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MALCOM D. SMITHSON and CHRISTINE B. SIMITHSON TRUSTS, et al., Plaintiffs…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Apr 10, 2008

Citations

Civ. No. 06-00624 MCA/RLP (D.N.M. Apr. 10, 2008)