Burns et al v. Universal Crop Protection Alliance et al
ORDER denying 156 Motion to Quash and directing parties to file within 10 days from the entry of this order an amended agreed protective order that encompasses documents and records as set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 4/1/09. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDE R On March 31, 2009, the Court held a telephone conference in this case regarding Plaintiffs' motion to quash subpoenas issued by Defendant Universal Crop Protection Alliance to third-party banking institutions. For the reasons stated by the Court during the telephone conference the Court finds that (1) Plaintiffs have standing to bring the motion to quash; (2) the documents sought contain confidential financial information that is not privileged or otherwise protected from discovery; and (3) the documents sought are discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court further finds that any records or documents produced under the aforementioned subpoenas are confidential and will be subject to the parties' agreed protective order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to quash (docket entry #156) is DENIED. However, the Court orders that any records or documents produced under the
B. GAIL BURNS, ET AL. Plaintiffs VS. UNIVERSAL CROP PROTECTION ALLIANCE, ET AL. Defendants
NO: 4:07CV00535 SWW
subpoenas dated March 3, 2009 issued by Defendant Universal Crop Protection Alliance to banking institutions are confidential and governed by the parties' agreed protective order. The parties are directed to file within 10 days from the entry of this order an amended agreed protective order that encompasses the aforementioned documents and records. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1ST DAY OF April 2009.
/s/Susan Webber Wright 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?