Arcure, et al. v. Meeker, et al.

Filing 254

CORRECTED ORDER Regarding Witness Subpoenas; CORRECTED ORDER to Supoenaed Witnesses; ORDER VACATING ECF No. 252 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/19/16. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YVONNE ARCURE, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00541-MJS (PC) CORRECTED ORDER REGARDING WITNESS SUBPOENAS v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, et al., CORRECTED ORDER TO SUPOENAED WITNESSES ORDER VACATING ECF No. 252 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On September 15, 2016, the court issued an Order Regarding Witness 20 Subpoenas and Order to Subpoenaed Witnesses. (ECF No. 252.) That order contained 21 a typographical error. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY VACATES its September 15, 22 2016 order and issues this corrected order. 23 The matter came before the Court on September 14, 2016, for a pretrial 24 conference and hearing on a motion. Inasmuch as the conference and hearing identified 25 issues in need of resolution prior to trial, the trial date was continued from October 4, 26 2016 to January 26, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. 27 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that all trial subpoenas previously issued 28 and properly served in this case shall remain in full force and effect, but the witness 1 report date shall be, and hereby is, continued from October 4, 2016, to January 26, 2017 2 at 8:30 a.m. Any person or entity already served with a subpoena to appear as a trial 3 witness on October 4, 2016, is hereby ORDERED instead to appear on January 26, 4 2017. 5 6 This Order shall have the same force and effect as the subpoena served on said witness and will be enforced as such. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 19, 2016 /s/ 10 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?