IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 14, 2007
MARLENE M. LUZIER, PLAINTIFF
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 14), seeking an order of court compelling defendants to respond to her request for production of documents,*fn1 to which defendants did not file an opposition,*fn2 and it appearing that no documents exist in possession of defendants to respond to plaintiff's second request for production of documents (see Doc. 14, attach. 4), and that plaintiff's first request*fn3 may be overly broad and not "relevant to the claim[s]" in the above-captioned action, see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to compel (Doc. 14) is DENIED in part as follows:
1. The motion to compel (Doc. 14) is DENIED to the extent that plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to respond to plaintiff's second request for production of documents.
2. The court will defer ruling on plaintiff's first request for production of documents pending further briefing.
a. Defendants shall be permitted to file, on or before February 28, 2007, a brief in opposition to the motion to compel. Defendants shall specifically address their claims that plaintiff's first request is overly broad and not relevant to plaintiff's claims. Failure to file a brief in opposition shall result in the motion being deemed unopposed. See L.R. 7.6.
b. Plaintiff shall be permitted to file, on or before March 14, 2007, a brief in reply.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge