STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Filing 53

REPLY to opposition to motion re 49 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by JESSICA CUTLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10)(Billips, Matthew)

STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Doc. 53 Att. 3

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Case 4:06-mc-00028-WRW

Document 53-4 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 1 1 Document 8 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION ROBERT STEINBUCH 4:06-MC-00028-WRW JESSICA CUTLER AMENDED ORDER Plaintiff's Motion to Quash (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; On reflection, it appears that the following language in the subpoena duces tecum is too broad: Each and every email, in electronic form, sent to or from (including cc's and/or bcc's) any email account assigned by you to Robert E. Steinbuch, including but not limited to the email address [e-mail] As an example, this could include communications between Plaintiff and his lawyer -- Plaintiff's reply lists other examples. So the request set forth in the above quoted language is denied without prejudice to allow Defendant to draw a narrower request. Otherwise the Motion to Quash is denied; however, UALR is permitted to redact the names of student evaluators if it wishes to do so. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2006. DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF

/s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dockets.Justia.com