Lewton et al v. Divingnzzo et al

Filing 113

ORDER (Briefing Schedule) regarding MOTION TO OVERRULE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENAS BEING ISSUED FOR PATRICIA WICKS, CHRISTINE BACCARI, STEPHAINE PETERSON, AND LAYNE PREST AND BRIEF 112 filed by Sam M. Divingnzzo, Dianna Divingnzzo. Plaintiffs' response is due 11/30/2010 and shall include a brief in support of their objections to the proposed subpoenas and an evidence index containing copies of the subpoenas at issue. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (CLS, )

L e w t o n et al v. Divingnzzo et al

D o c . 113

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA W I L L I A M DUANE LEWTON, et al., P l a i n t if fs , vs. D I A N N A DIVINGNZZO, et al., D e f e n d a n t s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8 :0 9 C V 2 ORDER (B r ie fin g Schedule)

O n September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed an objection (#99) to the issuance of s u b p o e n a s upon (1) Patricia Wicks, (2) Christine Baccari, (3) Stephanie Peterson, and (4) L a yn e Prest. The grounds for the objection are based on relevance and privilege under the p s yc h o th e ra p is t-p a tie n t privilege, counselor-client privilege, and the physician-patient p riv ile g e , see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-504 (Reissue 2007). On November 16, 2010, defendants Dianna Divingnzzo and Sam Divingnzzo filed a m o tio n (#112) to overrule plaintiffs' objections. Although this is a discovery motion, the D iv in g n z z o s did not show compliance with NECivR 7.0.1(i) 1 and did not supply the in f o rm a tio n required by NECivR 7.0.1(i)(2)2 . Since the motion itself contains no discussion

"To curtail undue delay in the administration of justice, this court only considers a discovery motion in which the moving party, in the written motion, shows that after personal consultation with opposing parties and sincere attempts to resolve differences, the parties cannot reach an accord. This showing must also state the date, time, and place of the communications and the names of all participating persons." NECivR 7.0.1(i) "A discovery motion must include in the motion or an attachment a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, or objection that is a subject of the motion." NECivR 7.0.1(i)(2).
2

1

Dockets.Justia.com

o f authority pertaining to the privileges raised in plaintiffs' objections, the court will not treat th e motion as a brief. N o party has filed an evidence index with copies of the proposed subpoenas. In the interests of judicial economy, I T IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a response to Divingnzzos' motion (#112) n o later than November 30, 2010. Plaintiffs' response shall include a brief in support of their o b je c tio n s to the proposed subpoenas and an evidence index containing copies of the s u b p o e n a s at issue. Since the Divingnzzos did not file any brief supporting the substantive is s u e s raised in their motion, no reply brief is allowed, see NECivR 7.0.1(c), and the motion w ill be deemed submitted upon the filing of plaintiffs' response. DATED November 17, 2010. B Y THE COURT: s / F.A. Gossett, III U n ite d States Magistrate Judge

-2-