Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc. et al

Filing 153

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying defendants' motions for clarification, 150 , 151 , and 152 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (CRZ)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PETER KIEWIT SONS’, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALL STREET EQUITY GROUP,
INC., WALL STREET GROUP OF
COMPANIES, INC., SHEPHERD
FRIEDMAN, and STEVEN S. WEST,
Defendants.

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

8:10CV365

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendants’ three separate Motions for
Clarification of November 9, 2011 order, (filing nos. 150, 151 and 152).

IT IS ORDERED:

1)

The defendants’ request for additional time to file a brief in response to the
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, (filing no. 150) is granted.1 The defendants
shall have until December 2, 2011 to file any such responsive brief. Plaintiff
shall not be entitled to a reply brief absent leave of the court.

2)

To the extent defendants’ motions seek clarification as to the manner of
production of the hard drives and server, and the confidentiality protection to
be afforded information obtained during the forensic examination, (see filing
nos, 150, 151, and 152), the motions are denied. Neither counsel has provided
any indication the parties have attempted to confer on the manner of

1

The court is well aware of defense counsel’s travel schedule. However, as stated
in the undersigned’s latest order, (filing no. 149) the briefing schedule is determined by the
local rules of this court. See NECivR 7.0.1(b)(1)(B). The court does not extend this
schedule absent a motion to extend.

production of the hard drives and server2 as required by local rule NECivR
7.0.1(i). It is the expectation of the court that counsel will comply with the
local rules for this court and will engage in a professional discussion to
determine how and when production is going to take place, including the
preservation of confidential material. If, after an honest, good faith effort to
reach an accord on the manner of production and disclosure, the parties cannot
come to a resolution, the appropriate motion may be filed and the court will
take the matter up at that time.
3)

Finally, the motion for clarification as to the number of servers to be
produced, (filing no. 152), is denied. If the defendants only have one server
in their possession containing the disputed information and the other
“crashed” and has since been discarded, the parties do not need a court order
stating only one server should be produced for inspection. However, if the
data on the “crashed” server was transferred to any device, in addition to the
remaining server, that device shall be produced for inspection as well.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2011.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

2

Presumably if the server cannot be removed from its current location and no other
satisfactory way of removing the information exists, the parties will have to arrange for the
forensic expert to travel to Florida to conduct his or her examination on site.
2