Benham v. Powell et al

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2003-cv-01127

ORDER granting in part and denying in part {{43}} Motion to Compel, denying as moot {{47}} Motion to Stay, granting {{53}} Motion to Compel, denying as moot {{57}} Motion to Amend/Correct, denying {{60}} Motion for Protective Order, denying as moot {{64}} Motion to Strike, denying without prejudice {{73}} Motion for Protective Order, denying {{75}} Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 9/14/06. Associated Cases: 1:03-cv-01127-HHK-JMF,1:00-cv-02466-HHK-JMF

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RENATE M. BENHAM, Plaintiff, v. CA NO. 03-1127 (HHK/JMF) CONDOLEEZA RICE, Defendant. ORDER In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the following is, hereby, ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Defenses for Failure to Provide Discovery, to Compel Defendant's Responsive Answers to Plaintiff's Discovery Demands, and to Extend Plaintiff's Discovery Period, and to Bar Witnesses Not Named in Defendant's 26(a) Discovery and Points and Authorities Thereof [#43] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Deposition and Points and Authorities Thereof [#47] is DENIED as moot. 3. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Independent Medical Examination and to Compel Production of Healthcare Records [#53] is GRANTED. 4. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Privilege Logs and to Compel Production of Documents for In Camera Inspection and Points and Authorities Thereof [#57] is DENIED as moot. 5. Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Independent Medical Examination and Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order [#60] is DENIED. 6. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Claims Relating to Physical and Emotional Harm [#61] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 7. Defendant's Motion to Strike, Or, In the Alternative, Reply in Support of Motion for An Independent Medical Examination [#64] is DENIED as moot. 8. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [#73] is DENIED without prejudice. 9. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Reply to: Defendant's Response to Order to Submit Document for In-Camera Inspection and Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order [#75] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. ______________________________ JOHN M. FACCIOLA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: 2