Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-3520 - Luna v. Valdez et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-3520 - Luna v. Valdez et al
September 21, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TRIAL SETTING: The Court now TERMINATES as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Requests and Interrogatories [Dkt. No. 16], DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Responses to Requests and Interrogatories [Dkt. No. 51], DENIES in part as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Disclosures [Dkt. No. 18], GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant Valdez's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Valdez's Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 66], Defendant Valdez's Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 25], and Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order [Dkt. No. 58], and enters a revised scheduling order. The Court will grant Defendants until October 4, 2017 to file a response explaining why the Court should not enter an order requiring them or their counsel to pay Plaintiff Miguel Angel Luna, as required by Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the expenses, including attorneys' fees, that he incurred in drafting and filing his Motion to Compel Disclosures [Dkt. No. 18]. Plaintiff may file a reply in support of an award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) by October 18, 2017. Plaintiff Miguel Angel Luna must file a response to in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 30] by October 21, 2017, and Defendants must file any reply by November 4, 2017. Because of the possible need for additional discovery-related proceedings if the Court does not grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 30] as to all claims, the undersigned recommends that the current trial setting for the two-week docket of February 20, 2018 be adjusted to a later two-docket at least 90 days after the current setting. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 9/21/2017) (mcrd)
February 2, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part, denying in part 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dallas County, Lupe Valdez. Plaintiff's action against Lupe Valdez is dismissed with prejudice by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) final judgment filed today. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 2/2/2018) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)