Schrader v. Henningsen Foods et al
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.
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 .
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.
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?