Loschen v. Trinity United, et al

Filing 70

ORDER granting 61 and 63 Motion to Continue the trial, and denying 62 Objections to defendants notices to serve Rule 45 records subpoenas without prejudice to re-filing should the parties be unable to resolve this dispute without court intervention. Ordered by Richard G. Kopf.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA KRISTI LOSCHEN, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF LINCOLN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:08CV3143 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A telephonic conference was held today on the defendant's motions to continue trial, (filing nos. 61 and 63), and on the plaintiff's objections to the defendant's notices to serve Rule 45 records subpoenas, (filing no. 62). Based on the representations of counsel, and with their agreement, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's motions to continue trial, (filing nos. 61 and 63), are granted, and a. A jury trial is set to commence on December 7, 2009. No more than five days are allocated to the trial of this case and counsel shall plan accordingly. This case is set as the first civil case, but is subject to the prior trial of any criminal cases scheduled to commence that week. The pretrial conference will be held by Judge Kopf in his chambers on November 25, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. (noon). Onehalf hour is allocated to this conference. Counsel shall provide Judge Kopf with a draft pretrial conference order at this pretrial conference and the draft order shall conform to the requirements of the local rules. b. 2) The plaintiff's objections to the defendant's notices to serve Rule 45 records subpoenas, (filing no. 62), are denied without prejudice to refiling should the parties be unable to resolve this dispute without court intervention. DATED this 25th day of September, 2009. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge -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?