Schrader v. Henningsen Foods et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying (96) Motion for Hearing in case 8:09cv33 and (54) Motion for Hearing in case 8:09cv170. Plaintiffs Motion for Hearing regarding defendants objection to the subpoena duces tecum is denied without prejudice. Member Cases: 8:09cv33, 8:09cv170. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (BJC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA AM Y SCHRADER, P l a in t if f , vs . H E N N IN G S E N FOODS, INC., a n d Q.P. CORPORATION, D e fe n d a n t s . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ D IAN E MORBACH, P l a in t if f , vs . H E N N IN G S E N FOODS, INC., a n d Q.P. CORPORATION, D e fe n d a n t s . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8 : 09 C V 3 3 ORDER

8 : 09 C V 1 7 0 ORDER

T h is matter is before the court on the plaintiff's Motion for Hearing (Filing No. 96 in Case No. 8 :0 9 C V 3 3 ; Filing No. 54 in Case No. 8:09CV170)1. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks a hearing on d efe nd an t's objection to the plaintiff's proposed subpoena duces tecum to be served on the Nebraska W o rk fo rc e Development. Id. at p. 1. The motion is supported by plaintiff's brief. (Filing No. 97). The p la in tiff originally filed a Notice of Intent to File Subpoena Duces Tecum on July 31, 2009. (Filing No. 5 6 ). The defendant filed an Objection to the notice on August 4, 2009. (Filing No. 58). Neb.R.Civ.P. 7.0.1(i) requires: To curtail undue delay in the administration of justice, the court only co n sid e rs a discovery motion in which counsel for the moving party, in the written motion, shows that after personal consultation with c o u n s e l for opposing parties and sincere attempts to resolve d iffe re n c e s , counsel cannot reach an accord. This showing must also s ta te the date, time and place of the communications and the names of

By ORDER Am y Schrader v. Henningsen Foods, Inc., 8:09CV33, and Diane Morbach v. Henningsen F o o d s , Inc., 8:09CV170 are consolidated for purposes of discovery. Case No. 8:09CV33 is designated as the " L e a d Case." Case No. 8:09CV170 is designated as the "Mem b e r Case." This Order will refer to the Plaintiff a s "Schrader" for purposes of discovery, but applies to both the Lead Case and the Mem b e r case.

1

a l l participating persons. As used in this rule, "counsel" includes pro se p a rti e s . (emphasis added). According to the plaintiff's motion, supporting brief and docket activity, there is no e vid e n ce to show efforts have been made to resolve this issue between the parties, as required by N e b .R .C iv. P. 7.0.1(i), following the filing of the defendant's Objection. Counsel should consult with the o p p o sin g party in an attempt to resolve the outstanding subpoena duces tecum issue, and the motion m a y be re-filed after such efforts have been made and documented as required by rule. Upon c o n s id e ra tio n ,

IT IS ORDERED: 1. P l ain tiff's Motion for Hearing regarding defendant's objection to the subpoena duces

te c u m (Filing No. 96 in Case No. 8:09CV33; Filing No. 54 in Case No. 8:09CV170) is denied without p re ju d ic e .

ADMONITION

P u rs u a nt to NECivR 72.2 any appeal of this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fo u rte e n (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Failure to timely appeal may constitute a waiver of any objection to the Order. The brief in support of any appeal shall be filed at the time of filin g such appeal. Failure to file a brief in support of any appeal may be deemed an abandonment of th e appeal.

D A T E D this 3rd day of March, 2010.

B Y THE COURT:

s /T h o m a s D. Thalken U n ite d States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion m a y contain hyperlinks to other docum e n ts or W e b sites. The U.S. District Court for th e District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m e n d , approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services o r products they provide on their W e b sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem e n ts with any of these third p a r tie s or their W e b sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any h yp e r lin k . Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect t h e opinion of the court.
2