Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de98> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de98 RegisterActionDate "2020-04-10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de98 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: The government's motion for protective order striking Defendant Cumming's Rule 30(b)(6) notice 87 is granted in part and denied in part. In his response to the motion, Cumming explains that he has two reasons for wanting to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. First, he wishes to gain information to establish that he should have been warned about the possibility of being named in a civil suit when he was served with a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID"). Cumming asserts that the government was legally bound to deliver to him a Miranda-like warning when serving him with a CID. Second, Cumming wishes to gain information to establish that the calls in question were not commercial calls and that the recipients of these calls consented to them. The first reason is not a legitimate reason for the proposed deposition because Cumming does not cite any authority, and the court is not aware of any, to support the notion that Miranda-like warnings are required prior to serving CIDs. This reason is also not enough for the deposition because the listed topics do not have anything to do with it. The second reason has more teeth, but like with the first reason, there is disconnect between this reason and the listed topics. However, the court finds that information responsive to Topic Nos. 8, 10, and 11 is relevant to the level of Cumming's culpability, if any, for the violations alleged. However, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is not required to address these three topics. As such, the government is ordered to provide the following to Cumming by April 30, 2020: (1) witness statements and documents responsive to Topic Nos. 8 and 10 (if the government has already done so, it may refer to the previous discovery response); and (2) a letter identifying the particular portions of the complaint responding to Topic No. 11 or including an affirmative statement whether the government seeks to argue that Cumming had actual knowledge of the alleged violations and/or that he should have known that the alleged acts amounted to violations. The compliance deadline will stand unless this court changes it sua sponte or in response to a motion. Nothing in this ruling limits the government's ability to seek discovery on the issue pertaining to the level of Cumming's culpability or to develop its litigation strategy. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 04/10/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de98 AdministrativeID "99" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de98 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de98 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de86 @default.