AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions

LEO ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Defendant.

ORDER

SUSAN WRIGHT, District Judge

Plaintiff Leo Anderson brings this action seeking damages for alleged injuries he sustained when the vehicle he was operating was struck by a train operated by defendant Union Pacific Railroad. The matter is before the Court on motion [doc. #10] of defendant to compel. Defendant states that plaintiff has not made initial disclosures, which were due December 15, 2010, or answered defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents despite attempts to get plaintiff to comply with his obligations. The time for responding to defendant's motion to compel has passed with no response from plaintiff. Accordingly the Court hereby grants defendant's motion to compel and orders that plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order, provide defendant with both his initial disclosures and his full and complete responses to defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Failure to comply with this Order will result in sanctions, including possible dismissal without prejudice of this action. See Keefer v. Provident Life Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2001).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ANDERSON v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
(Apr 1, 2011)