ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Doc. 42)
LAURA FASHING, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 42). Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 43), and the time for defendant to file a reply has now passed. Having reviewed the motion, response, and the applicable law, the Court finds the motion moot, and it will be DENIED.
In the motion to compel, defendant asks the Court to require plaintiff to answer Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Doc. 42 at 1. Defendant's counsel admits in the motion that he conferred with plaintiff's attorney Paul Rossi, and agreed not to file the motion to compel as long as plaintiff produced answers and responses by the close of business on Friday, April 21, 2017. Id. at 2. In the response, Mr. Rossi states that he delivered plaintiff's answers and responses at 12:30 p.m. on April 21, 2017— before the agreed-upon deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT.