Jackson v. Calone, et al.

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/21/16 ORDERING that, at the moving Plaintiff's request, the Court DROPS from its 10/27/16 calendar 21 25 26 27 28 (and amended 39 40 41 42 43 ) five motions to compel co mpliance with five subpoenas served on William Jackson in various capacities. Plaintiff's two remaining 19 30 motions to compel compliance with subpoenas served on Schmidt, Bettencourt & Medeiros, LLP and V. A. Rodden, Inc., REMAIN remain on calendar for hearing on that date. (Benson, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 JAMES R. KIRBY II [SBN: 88911] NAGELEY, MEREDITH, KIRBY & WINBERRY, INC. 8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172 Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone No: (916) 386-8282 Facsimile No: (916) 386-8952 Attorneys for Plaintiff DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD CALONE; CALONE & HARREL LAW GROUP, LLP; CALONE & BEATTIE, LLP; CALONE LAW GROUP, LLP, Case No.: 2:16-cv-00891-TLN-KJN (PROPOSED) ORDER RE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS DATE: TIME: DEPT: TRIAL DATE: October 27, 2016 9:00 a.m. 25 None Set Defendant. 17 18 At the moving Plaintiff’s request, the Court drops from its October 27, 2016 19 calendar five motions to compel compliance with five subpoenas served on William 20 Jackson in various capacities. (ECF Nos. 21, 25, 26, 27, 28.) Plaintiff’s two remaining 21 motions to compel compliance with subpoenas served on Schmidt, Bettencourt & 22 Medeiros,LLP and V. A. Rodden, Inc., ECF Nos. 19 and 30, will remain on calendar for 23 hearing on that date. This order resolves the motions filed at ECF Nos. 21, 25, 26, 27, 24 25 26 27 and 28, and the amended motions filed at ECF Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2016 28 -1

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?