James v. Scribner et al

Filing 116

ORDER signed by District Judge Raner Collins on 10/5/2010. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants must file a response outlining their position on Plaintiff's 112 Motion to Supplement Complaint and 114 Motion to Compel on or before October 26, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 115 Motion for Duces Tecum Subpoena for Third Party Documents is DENIED.(Bradley, A)

(PC) James v. Scribner et al

Doc. 116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pending before this Court are Plaintiff's Second Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 112), Motion to Compel (Doc. 114), and Motion for Duces Tecum Subpoena for Third Party Documents (Doc. 115). Plaintiff's Motion for Duces Tecum Subpoena for Third Party Documents (Doc. 115) appears to be identical to his Motion for Third Party Subpoenas (Doc. 103) filed on September 16, 2010. On October 1, 2010, this Court issued its order addressing Plaintiff's requested relief. See Doc. 110. Therefore, the Court will not revisit this issue further. However, the Court will require a response from Defendants as to Plaintiff's remaining two motions. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants must file a response outlining their position on Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 112) and Motion to Compel (Doc. 114) on or before October 26, 2010. vs. A.K. Scribner, et al., Defendants. John James III, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-880-TUC-RCC ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Duces Tecum Subpoena for Third Party Documents (Doc. 115) is denied.

DATED this 5th day of October, 2010.

-2-