Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc et al v. Boeing Company, The et al
ORDER -re: Report and Recommendation 182 containing the recommendation that Boeing's Motion to Compel Testimony on Topic 5, 20, and 32 of Boeings Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice be granted. The court hereby ADOPTS the Reports of the Special M aster and ACCEPTS the recommendations. It is ORDERED that Boeing's Motion to Compel is GRANTED. AAI SHALL provide corporate testimony in the manner proposed in Boeings Notice (Topic 32) and July 21, 2015 letter (Topics 5 and 20). Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/16/2016. (AVC)
2016 Mar-16 PM 01:47
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES,
INC., ALABAMA AIRCRAFT
INDUSTRIES, INC. – BIRMINGHAM, AND )
PEMCO AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
THE BOEING COMPANY,
BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS,
INC. AND BOEING AEROSPACE
Case No. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP
On February 9, 2016, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #
182) containing the recommendation that Boeing’s Motion to Compel Testimony on Topics 5,
20, and 32 of Boeing’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice, which was filed with the Special Master
on October 9, 2015, be granted. No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Reports of the Special Master. The court
further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Special Master. It is therefore ORDERED that
Boeing’s Motion to Compel Testimony on Topics 5, 20, and 32 of Boeing’s Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition Notice is GRANTED. AAI SHALL provide corporate testimony in the manner
proposed in Boeing’s Notice (Topic 32) and July 21, 2015 letter (Topics 5 and 20).
DONE and ORDERED this March 16, 2016.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
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?