Lincoln Provision, Inc. v. Puretz, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER ORDER - Plaintiff Lincoln Provision's Motion for (1) Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (2) Order Compelling Aron Puretz's Deposition in Omaha, NE and (3) Leave to Amend Complaint if Necessary Following Discovery (filing 77 ) is granted, in part. Plaintiff's request that the court compel Aron Puretz's deposition is granted. Mr. Puretz shall present for deposition on a date to be established by the parties. Said deposition shall be conducted by video or, alternatively, in New York. The pending motions to dismiss (filings 69 & 73 ) shall be held in abeyance pending Aron Puretz's deposition. Plaintiff shall respond to the motions to dismiss within fourteen days of the completion of Aron Puretz's deposition. In all other respects, Plaintiff's Motion is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LINCOLN PROVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
ARON PURETZ, PMP, LLC, and
HASTINGS ACQUISITION, LLC,
nominal defendant,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:10CV344

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Lincoln Provision’s Motion for (1)
Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (2) Order Compelling
Aron Puretz’s Deposition in Omaha, NE and (3) Leave to Amend Complaint if Necessary
Following Discovery (filing 77). For the reasons discussed during the telephone conference
with the parties’ counsel on today’s date, Plaintiff’s Motion will be granted, in part.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff Lincoln Provision’s Motion for (1) Enlargement of Time to Respond
to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (2) Order Compelling Aron Puretz’s
Deposition in Omaha, NE and (3) Leave to Amend Complaint if Necessary
Following Discovery (filing 77) is granted, in part.

2.

Plaintiff’s request that the court compel Aron Puretz’s deposition is granted.
Mr. Puretz shall present for deposition on a date to be established by the
parties. Said deposition shall be conducted by video or, alternatively, in New
York.

3.

The pending motions to dismiss (filings 69 & 73) shall be held in abeyance
pending Aron Puretz’s deposition. Plaintiff shall respond to the motions to
dismiss within fourteen days of the completion of Aron Puretz’s deposition.

4.

In all other respects, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

DATED January 24, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2