In Re: Frank F. Ogalin
ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting in limited part (Dkts. ##324, 327) to the extent that copies of the responsive documents, as discussed in the attached order, shall be submitted to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers for her in camera review. (See Attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 9/22/2016. (Watson, M.)
ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT ON DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, filed 8/9/16 (Dkt. #324) AND ON
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, filed 8/30/16 (Dkt. #327) IN CADLE CO. V. OGALIN ET
AL., 04 CV 1225 (JBA)
9/22/16 – This file is notable for the fact that although a jury verdict was reached in
plaintiff's favor in late January 2007 (Dkt. #182) and judgment entered in late September
2007 (Dkts. ##233-34, 237), there has now been a remarkable nine years of post-judgment
activity in this file (Dkts. ##241-42, 244-45, 247-328), familiarity with which is presumed.
Two motions presently are pending before the Court. First, on August 9, 2016, defense
counsel filed his Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for a Protective Order (Dkt.
#324),1 as to which plaintiff filed its brief in opposition on August 30, 2016 (Dkt. #326).2
Second, on August 30, 2016, plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel (Dkt. #327),3 as to which no
timely brief in opposition has been filed. Both of these motions have been referred to this
Magistrate Judge. (Dkts. ##325, 328).
The most efficient manner in which to proceed is for defense counsel to forward copies of
documents responsive to the subpoena to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers, on or before
October 26, 2016, for her in camera review, with an explanation of the payments, if not
readily apparent from the documents. Production will be ordered only to the extent that
such documents reflect payments other than the payment of legal bills or other than those
payments ordered by the Court.4
Accordingly, defense counsel's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for a Protective
Order (Dkt. #324) and plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. #327) are granted in limited part
to the extent that copies of the responsive documents shall be submitted to this Magistrate
Judge's Chambers for her in camera review.
Attached as Exh. A is a copy of the subpoena, dated July 22, 2016, and of the Notice of
Deposition, dated July 29, 2016.
No reply brief was filed.
Attached is another copy of the subpoena (Exh. A), a copy of defense counsel's objection,
dated August 9, 2016 (Exh. B), and an affidavit of counsel, dated August 29, 2016 (Exh. C).
The Magistrate Judge sincerely hopes that there are no additional post-judgment motions
filed in 2017, which would bring the post-judgment phase of this lawsuit into a decade of activity.
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?