Sampson v. Schenck et al

Filing 154

ORDER denying (153) Motion to Quash in case 8:07cv155; denying (125) Motion to Quash in case 8:08cv107. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA NICHOLAS SAMPSON, Plaintiff, and MATTHEW LIVERS, Plaintiff, v. EARL SCHENCK, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:07CV155 8:08CV107 ORDER This matter is before the court on Nicholas Sampson's Motion to Quash Notice to T a k e Deposition (Filing No. 153). The movant did not file a brief or index of evidence in support of the motion. Further, the motion contains no legal citation or legal basis to quash. Finally, there is no indication in the motion whether the movant complied with NECivR 7.1(i). NECivR 7.1(i) states: To curtail undue delay in the administration of justice, this court will not consider any discovery motion unless counsel for the moving party, as part of the motion, shows in writing that after personal consultation with counsel for opposing parties and sincere attempts to resolve differences, they are unable to reach an accord. See NECivR 7.1(i) (emphasis added). The rule further defines personal consultation and th e showing required. See NECivR 7.1(i)(1). Accordingly, the court will not consider the m o tion based on the movant's failure to comply with the rule. Upon consideration, IT IS ORDERED: M r. Sampson's Motion to Quash Notice to Take Deposition (Filing No. 153) is denied. DATED this 17th day of December, 2008. BY THE COURT: s/ Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge

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?