Snowden v. Time Safe, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER : IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement, for Attorneys Fees, and for an Order to Show Cause why Defendants are not in Contempt [Docket No. 58] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:a.Defendants shall produce a ny other existing documentation that may subsequently be needed to effectively carry out the terms of the agreement to Defendant Charley, with full access by Plaintiff, within seven days of the date of this Order.b.Plaintiffs Request for attorneys fe es and a finding of contempt is DENIED with leave to renew in the event Defendants do not produce the said documentation as ordered. Further, should the documentation not be furnished as ordered, this case will be re-opened, placed on the Courts docket and scheduled for trial on the issues presently before the Court.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on Jully 3, 2012. (slf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Robert Vincent Snowden, Jr.,

Civil No. 10-4516 (JNE/JJG)

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ON REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Time Safe, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and
Timothy Duke Armstrong, Gary Charley and
Thomas McInerney, individually,
Defendants.

This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable
Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 29, 2012. The Court has received
Plaintiff’s objections to portions of the Report and Recommendation. No response was received
by the Defendants. Based on a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation [Docket No. 67] with modification. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, for Attorney’s Fees, and for an Order to
Show Cause why Defendants are not in Contempt [Docket No. 58] is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

Defendants shall produce any other existing documentation that may
subsequently be needed to effectively carry out the terms of the agreement
to Defendant Charley, with full access by Plaintiff, within seven days of
the date of this Order.

b.

Plaintiff’s Request for attorney’s fees and a finding of contempt is
DENIED with leave to renew in the event Defendants do not produce the
said documentation as ordered. Further, should the documentation not be
furnished as ordered, this case will be re-opened, placed on the Court’s
docket and scheduled for trial on the issues presently before the Court.

Dated: July 3, 2012

s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, Judge
United States District Court