American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania et al v. Skilstaf, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER; The court having been orally informed that the Rule 26(f) report 24 does not reflect the views of all parties, it is ORDERED that the report is rejected. The Rule 26(f) report should be joint, that is, there should be only one report. If the parties disagree on certain matters, the report should reflect the areas of disagreement as well as those of agreement. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/22/2010. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD; and TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. SKILSTAF, INC, and PACA, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER The court having been orally informed that the Rule 26(f) report (doc. no. 24) does not reflect the views of all parties, it is ORDERED that the report is rejected. The Rule 26(f) report should be joint, that is, there should be only one report. If the parties disagree on CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08cv333-MHT (WO) certain matters, the report should reflect the areas of disagreement as well as those of agreement. DONE, this the 22nd day of April, 2010. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?