Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de347> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de347 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-02" @default.
- mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de347 RegisterActionDescriptionText "Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 333 Motion. ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. In early January 2019, this court became aware that the recording system in the courtroom failed to function on December 20 and 21, 2018, and on January 2, 2019. Having considered the parties' arguments, this court issues the following statement of the evidence pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(c).On December 20, 2018, at approximately 2:00 p.m., counsel for the parties in Securities and Exchange Commission v. C05F590 & Associates, Inc. and C05F590, Civil Action No. 17-11633-DJC, appeared before this court for a hearing on Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena to Non-Party ACA Compliance Group and for Protective Order (Docket Entry # 66), and the related filings (Docket Entry ## 68, 69, 73, 74). The hearing lasted for approximately one hour. Counsel for defendants C05F590 & Associates, Inc. ("NAI") and C05F590 ("defendants") argued the factual and legal points made in defendants' supporting memorandum (Docket Entry # 68) and amended reply brief (Docket Entry # 74) in support of their motion for protective order, including that communications to ACA Compliance Group ("ACA") by NAI staff were subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine for the reasons set forth in defendants' briefs. Defendants' counsel's arguments included that the communications with ACA were made at the behest of defendants' counsel to assist him in giving legal advice to his clients. Counsel for plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") argued the legal and factual points raised in the SEC's memorandum (Docket Entry # 69) opposing the motion for protective order, including that the ACA communications were not subject to the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine for the reasons set forth in its opposition (Docket Entry # 69). Near the conclusion of hearing, this court recessed the hearing to consider the parties' arguments. When this court resumed the hearing a short time later, this court indicated it did not have further questions for the parties, and stated that it will take the matter under advisement. (Putnam, Harold) (Entered: 11/02/2020)" @default.
- mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de347 AdministrativeID "342" @default.
- mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de347 hasJudgeReference SJ000660 @default.
- mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de347 hasReferenceToOtherEntry mad;;1:17-cv-11633_de338 @default.