The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
This civil action was initiated by plaintiff Northwest Savings Bank and Financial Services in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County on June 19, 2009. Plaintiff has named as defendants NS First Street LLC and 2200 South Atherton Street LLC. The case later was removed to this court upon the defendants' Notice of Removal, which was filed with this court on July 22, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 1). Removal was appropriate under 28. U.S.C. § 1441, as this court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
In its complaint, plaintiff asserts against the above-named defendants one count for damages and two counts for declaratory judgment. These counts arise out of a lease agreement concerning a property located at 2200 South Atherton Street, State College, Pennsylvania.
After the matter was removed to federal court, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on August 3, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 4). In their answer, the defendants included eight affirmative defenses as well as counterclaims. Id. at 8-13. The plaintiff filed a reply to the defendants' counterclaims on August 12, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 9).
On October 8, 2009, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the plaintiff filed a stipulation agreed to by the parties providing for the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint ("First-Amended Complaint"). (Rec. Doc. No. 14). This court issued an order on October 13, 2009, approving the stipulation to amend the complaint. (Rec. Doc. No. 18). The plaintiff filed the first-amended complaint on October 8, 2009 (Rec. Doc. No. 15), and the defendants filed an answer, with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, to the first-amended complaint on October 27, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 19). On November 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a reply to the defendants' counterclaims to the plaintiff's first-amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. No. 22).
On October 13, 2009, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Hold Rent Monies in an Escrow Account," with a brief in support. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 16 and 17). The defendants filed a brief opposing the plaintiff's motion on October 28, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff filed a reply brief on November 9, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 21). On January 6, 2010, this court denied plaintiff's motion to hold rent monies in escrow, finding that it would be improper for the court to accept such deposits or to order such deposits into escrow. (Rec. Doc. No. 23 at 6-8).
On March 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a concurred-in motion for modification of the then-controlling case management order. (Rec. Doc. No. 24). This court, by an order dated March 17, 2010, granted the concurred-in motion. (Rec. Doc. No. 27). As part of our modified order dated March 17, 2010, this court, inter alia, moved the case from the August 2010 trial list, placed the matter on the November 2010 trial list, and required that all fact discovery be completed on or before July 1, 2010. Id. at 2.
On May 14, 2010, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Compel Dates Certain for the Depositions of Defendants," with a brief in support. (Rec. Doc. Nos. 28 and 29). Plaintiff contends that it has attempted to obtain from defendants' counsel dates for deposing a David Ross and a Richard Becker, to no avail. (Rec. Doc. No. 29 at 2- 3). In addition, plaintiff contends that sanctions are appropriate in the instant matter in light of the "[d]efendants' failure to cooperate with [p]laintiff in a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute." Id. at 3. The defendants have not filed a brief in opposition, and the date for doing so has since passed.
As the matter is ripe for disposition, and based on the following, this court will grant the plaintiff's "Motion to Compel Dates Certain for the Depositions of Defendants." (Rec. Doc. Nos. 28).
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets the contours for discovery and provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense - including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things . . . ." The rule further states that "[r]elevant information need not be admissible at ...