Entrepreneur Media, Inc.v. Smith

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/01/11 ORDERING that plaintiff's 87 Motion to Compel defendant to submit all papers, pleadings, and other matters sought to be filed, for approval by a judge or magistrate judge as a cond ition of filing and service thereof is DENIED; defendant's 92 Emergency Motion to Extend Time is DENIED; plaintiff's 93 Application for OSC why a permanent prefiling order should not be issued and for an order disentitling defendant from filing any opposition to any post-judgment remedies sought by plaintiff is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. MISC. S-10-55 JAM EFB

SCOTT SMITH dba
ENTREPRENEURPR,

14
Defendant.

ORDER
/

15
16

On November 30, 2011, the court heard (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to

17

submit all papers, pleadings, and other matters sought to be filed, for approval by a judge or

18

magistrate judge as a condition of filing and service thereof, Dckt. No. 87; (2) defendant’s

19

emergency motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff’s order to appear for the November 30,

20

2011 judgment debtor examination and produce documents responsive to plaintiff’s subpoena

21

duces tecum, Dckt. No. 92; and (3) plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause why a

22

permanent prefiling order should not be issued and for an order disentitling defendant from filing

23

any opposition to any post-judgment remedies sought by plaintiff, Dckt. No. 93. Attorney David

24

J. Cook appeared on behalf of plaintiff; defendant appeared pro se.

25

////

26

////
1

1

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to submit all papers, pleadings, and other

3

matters sought to be filed, for approval by a judge or magistrate judge as a condition of filing

4

and service thereof, Dckt. No. 87, is denied;

5

2. Defendant’s emergency motion to extend time, Dckt. No. 92, is denied; and

6

3. Plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause why a permanent prefiling order

7

should not be issued and for an order disentitling defendant from filing any opposition to any

8

post-judgment remedies sought by plaintiff, Dckt. No. 93, is denied.

9
10

SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 1, 2011

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2