Legal Opinion

Marsh v. Homesite Indemnity Company

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

Decided May 25, 2025No. 4:24-cv-00531Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA HAYDEN MARSH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 24-cv-00531-JDR-SH ) HOMESITE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to its second discovery requests to Defendant. The Court finds no order is necessary as to the requests for admission but compels a response to the requests for production. Background On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff Hayden Marsh served his second set of written discovery requests on Defendant Homesite Indemnity Company. (ECF Nos.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Raiser v. Utah CountyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
  2. Federal Trade Commission v. Medicor, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2002
  3. Smith v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2009
  4. Jiles v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API