Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de110> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de110 RegisterActionDate "2019-07-17" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de110 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER Staying Rule 45 Subpoena Response Deadline Pending Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order [ECF.# 108 ]. The parties contacted Magistrate Judge Crews' Chambers pursuant to §E(3) of SKC Civil Practice Standards. The parties informed the Court of a dispute over whether the third-parties' response deadline to the Rule 45 Subpoena was stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. The Court has determined that oral argument will not materially assist the disposition of the dispute.The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (discretion is incidental to the Court's power to control its own docket). The Court finds a stay of discovery that is the subject of the Rule 45 Subpoena's at issued to Plaintiff's CPAs is warranted to protect the third party's from "undue burden or expense." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a stay of the response deadline associated with Defendant Antero's Subpoena's issued on Plaintiffs' CPAs is entered pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that briefing is expedited on the Motion to Quash as follows: Defendant Antero's Response is due 7/26/2019. Plaintiff's Reply is 8/2/2019. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/17/2019. Text Only Entry (skclc2) (Entered: 07/17/2019)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de110 AdministrativeID "111" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de110 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de110 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00693_de107 @default.