Stelor Productions, v. Silvers

Filing 108

ORDER granting [105-1] supplemental motion for protective order and incorporated memorandum of law ( Signed by Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins on 3/2/06) [EOD Date: 3/2/06] (ck, Deputy Clerk)

Case 9:05-cv-80393-DTKH

Document 108

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID A Case No .05-80393-Civ-Hurley/Hopkin s STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC Plaintiff,
vs .

STEVEN A . SILVERS, Defendant .

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 105) THIS CAUSE, having come before this Court upon an Order Referring Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Rule 11 Sanctions to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation, (DE 85), and being otherwise advised on the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED . On November 2, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Rule 11 Sanctions . (DE 85) . Defendant 's motion is currently pending before this Court . On January 13, 2006, following the receipt of a notice of deposition from Defendant, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order . (DE 100) . On January 23, 2006, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, prohibiting discovery relating to Defendant's Rule 11 Motion . (DE 104) . On January

Case 9:05-cv-80393-DTKH

Document 108

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2006

Page 2 of 3

24, 2006, Plaintiff filed the instant supplemental Motion for Protective Order . (DE 105) . Defendant filed his response on January 24, 2006, advising that "[o]bviously, there is no need for Goo Investments to respond to our discovery request in light of the Court's Protective Order ." (DE 107) . For the reasons discussed in this Court's January 23, 2006 order, Plaintiff's supplemental Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED . (DE 105) . For the reasons discussed in this Court's January 23, 2006 order, the parties in this case are not granted leave to conduct Rule 11 discovery . (DE 105) . Because the parties' submissions indicate that this motion may have been prematurely filed, no sanctions or request for a fee award will be considered by this Court relating to the preparation and filing of this motion . Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's supplemental Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED . (DE 105) .

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers this day of 2006, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida .

MMES M . HOPKINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG E
2

Case 9:05-cv-80393-DTKH

Document 108

Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2006

Page 3 of 3

Copies to : Kevin C . Kaplan, Esq . (Counsel for Plaintiff) Kenneth R . Hartmann, Esq. (Counsel for Defendant )

3