ORDER

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

ORDER

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motions filed herein:

MOTION: DEFENDANTIS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING AND MOTION TO ENFORCE DEPOSITION AND SUBPOENA (Doc. No. 37)

FILED: May 22,1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.

MOTION: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 39)

FILED: May 26,1998

THEREON its ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The answers to the Interrogatories are sufficient, with the exception of Interrogatory No. 3, which is non-responsive. Plaintiff shall answer the Interrogatory, which calls for a "yes" or "no" response, within 11 days of the date of this Order.

As for the Answers to the Request for Admissions, Plaintiff has supplied sufficient answers, with the exception of Requests No. 1 and 2, which Plaintiff has failed to admit or deny. To the extent Plaintiff s explanation as stated in his answer is an objection to the question, it is OVERRULED. The propositions can be answered "admitted" or "denied," with an explanation, if Plaintiff desires. Plaintiff shall have 11 days from the date of this Order to either admit or deny. Failure to do so shall result in these Requests being deemed admitted.

To the extent-Defendants believe the other answers to the Requests are incorrect or false, the remedy is not to seek an order to compel the "right" answer, but (at an appropriate time) to move for an order requiring the Plaintiff to pay all of Defendants' reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in making that proof. See Rule 37(c)(2). Defendants may so move, if appropriate, when the required showing is established.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTION FROM UNTIMELY DEPOSITIONS (Doc. No. 40)

FILED: May 26,1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (Doc. No. 41)

FILED: May 26,1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTION OF PERSON SUBJECT TO SUBPOENA (Doc. No. 42)

FILED: May 26,1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATES DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFIS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 48)

FILED: June l, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 5, 1998.

DAVID A. BAKER <signed>
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Christopher F. Sapp
Vincent G. Torpy