AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, et al.

Filing 146

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/15/2015. The hearing on Parsons Behle's #144 Motion to Enforce Subpoena is ADVANCED to 2/5/2015 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM). Any further Motions to Enforce Subpoenas, to Require Production of Documents, for Protective Orders, Motions In Limine, and similar Motions related to Evidentiary Hearing on 2/24/2015, shall be filed no later than Monday, 2/2/2015. Memoranda filed in support of such Motions shall be limited to 10 pages, and each Motion must include a Statement describing parties' efforts to meet and confer to resolve disputes. Responses shall be argued at the pre-hearing status conference on 2/5/2015. The deadline for submission of a joint pre-hearing stipulation and report is RE-SET for Monday, 2/2/2015. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AT&T MOBILITY LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 2:13-cv-0007-KJM-DAD v. ORDER GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”YEAGER (RET.); ED BOWLIN; CONNIEBOWLIN; AVIATION AUTOGRAPHS;BOWLIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; LAWOFFICES OF JOANNA R. MENDOZA,P.C.; DE LA PENA & HOLIDAY, LLP; LESSER LAW GROUP, Defendants. 19 20 An evidentiary hearing is set in this case for Feburary 24, 2015. Order, ECF No. 21 22 139; Minute Order, ECF No. 141. At the hearing, General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager (Ret.) may 23 present evidence to support his assertion that R. Parker White, his counsel, did not have authority 24 to enter a settlement agreement on his behalf with Parsons, Behle & Latimer. See Order 8, ECF 25 No. 139. In addition, the court has instructed the parties to file a joint pre-hearing stipulation and 26 report by January 29, 2015, and attend a pre-hearing status conference on February 5, 2015. 27 Minute Order, ECF No. 141. 28 ///// 1 1 On January 14, 2015, Parsons Behle filed a motion to enforce its subpoena to 2 produce documents against Poswall, White & Cutler. ECF No. 144. It noticed a hearing on its 3 motion for February 27, 2015. Id. Parsons Behle’s subpoena required production of “all 4 communications between PWC and Yeager regarding the settlement agreement and the vacating 5 of the trial.” Mem. P.&A. 1, ECF No. 144-1. 6 7 On January 14, 2015, the court granted R. Parker White’s request to withdraw as attorney for General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager (Ret.). Order, ECF No. 145. 8 9 10 In the interest of an efficient and just resolution of this matter, to avoid duplicative or ineffective motions to enforce subpoenas, and in anticipation of potential evidentiary disputes before the February status conference and hearing, the court orders as follows: 11 12 (1) The hearing on Parsons Behle’s motion to enforce the subpoena is ADVANCED to Thursday, February 5, 2015, at 2:30pm. 13 (2) Any further motions to enforce subpoenas, to require production of documents, 14 for protective orders, motions in limine, and similar motions related to the evidentiary hearing on 15 February 24, 2015, shall be filed no later than Monday, February 2, 2015. Memoranda filed in 16 support of such motions shall be limited to ten pages, and each motion must include a statement 17 describing the parties’ efforts to meet and confer to resolve disputes. Responses shall be argued 18 at the pre-hearing status conference on February 5, 2015. 19 (3) The deadline for submission of a joint pre-hearing stipulation and report is 20 RESET for Monday, February 2, 2015. As previously ordered, this joint stipulation and report 21 shall list (a) disputed and undisputed questions of fact, (b) exhibits each party may present at the 22 hearing, (c) witnesses each party may call at the hearing, and (d) any evidentiary objections. 23 24 25 26 (4) Any request to alter this schedule shall be granted only on a showing of good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 15, 2015. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?