Zickes v. Bryan Smith, et al, No. 1:2015cv01865 - Document 55 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/25/16 denying as moot defendants' motion to compel and for continuance. (Related Doc. 50 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
Zickes v. Bryan Smith, et al Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: JOSEPH ZICKES, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : BRYAN SMITH et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1865 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 50] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On July 12, 2016, Defendants Bryan Smith and Michael Carroll (“Defendants”) moved for an order compelling Plaintiff Zickes to produce certified records in response to discovery requests.1 Defendants also moved for an order continuing the dispositive motion deadline.2 On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff Zickes filed an opposition arguing that Defendants’ motion should be found moot given that Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on July 18, 2016.3 Further, Plaintiff Zickes avers that he produced his entire Ohio Public Employees Retirement Systems records and that he does not have control over whether the documents are certified or not.4 Moreover, it appears that the retirement records would be mainly relevant in calculating potential damages, and are thus not as relevant for summary judgment purposes.5 Given that Zickes turned over the entirety of his Ohio Public Employees Retirement Systems records and 1 Doc. 50. Id. 3 Doc. 54. 4 Id. 5 In their motion, Defendants state, “His alleged damages include lost wages. Therefore, it was central to this suit that Defendants obtain Plaintiff’s certified records from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and his income statements early enough for use during Plaintiff’s deposition.” Doc. 50. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No.15-CV-1865 Gwin, J. that Defendants then filed motions for summary judgment, this Court DENIES as MOOT Defendants’ motion to compel and for continuance. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 25, 2016 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.