Polk v. Cavin et al
Filing
179
ORDER REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 10, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
SUSAN MAE POLK,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
No. C 08-1483 MMC (PR)
ORDER REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY
MOTIONS
v.
DEPUTY JAMES CAVIN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, the following motions, each filed by plaintiff Susan
18
Mae Polk, are hereby REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge to be heard and considered at the
19
convenience of the assigned Magistrate Judge’s calendar:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) “Motion for Order to Compel the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Dept. to Comply
with Subpoena Duces Tecums,” filed July 10, 2012;
(2) “Motion for Order to Compel Publishers & Editors of the S.F. Chronicle & the
Contra Costa Times to Comply with Subpoenas Duces Tecums,” filed July 10, 2012;
(3) “Motion to Compel Forensic Medical Group to Comply with Subpoena Duces
Tecums,” filed July 18, 2012;
(4) “Motion to Compel Department of Motor Vehicles to Comply with Subpoena
Duces Tecums,” filed July 23, 2012;
(5) “Objection to Violation of Court’s Order to Public Defender to Comply with SDT &
1
Violation of Attorney/Client Privilege by Public Defender; Request for Order to Comply &
2
Impose Sanctions,” filed July 30, 2012; and
3
4
5
(6) “Motion for Order to US Marshall to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecums,” filed
August 1, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED
6
7
Dated: August 10, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
8
9
10
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?