Cash et al v. Gwinnett Sprinkler Company, Inc. et al, No. 1:2008cv02858 - Document 51 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying with leave to renew Plaintiffs' 41 Motion to Compel and for Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to re-file their motion within 10 days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 8/24/09. (bse)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION James Cash, Dana Armstrong, Charles A. Eckstein individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Gwinnett Sprinkler Company, Inc., Joshua Carter, Gerald Chad, Anthony T. Anderson, Jonathan Durden, Scott C. Mayo and Ronnie Franklin, Plaintiffs, v. Gwinnett Sprinkler Company, Inc., Chaz Ahmed, Alan Clark, Richard Marcet, Dean Smith and Mike Herrin, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-2858-JOF OPINION AND ORDER The instant matter is before the court on Plaintiffs motion to compel and for attorney s fees [41]. On May 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel with respect to the discovery responses Defendants were asked to supply. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiffs motion does not comply with this court's local rules requiring that a motion to compel shall "[q]uote verbatim each disclosure, interrogatory, . AO 72A (Rev.8/82) . . to which objection is taken. . . . The motion shall be arranged so that the objection, grounds, authority, and supporting reasons follow the verbatim statement of each specific disclosure, interrogatory . . . ." LR 37.1, N.D. Ga. Plaintiffs May 20, 2009 motion to compel and for attorneys fees is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW [41]. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to re-file their motion within ten (10) days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of August 2009. /s J. Owen Forrester J. OWEN FORRESTER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.