Davis et al v. Bamford, Inc. et al

Filing 54

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The order granting plaintiffs' motion for protective order (Filing No. 48 ) is stayed. Defendants shall file a surreply brief with the Court responding to plaintiffs' reply brief and affidavits by December 6, 2011. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BOBBY DAVIS, BRENDA DAVIS,
and GEOFFREY DAVIS,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BAMFORD, INC. and NANCY MARET )
PACKER, Personal
)
Representative of the ESTATE )
OF MICHAEL PACKER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV69

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion
for leave to respond to plaintiffs’ reply brief and to reconsider
the Court’s order granting a motion for protective order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (Filing No. 52).
Defendants had sought to compel plaintiffs’ attendance at
depositions in Omaha, Nebraska, scheduled for November 28-29,
2011.

Plaintiffs, who live in Dallas, Texas, filed a motion for

protective order requesting that the depositions take place in
Dallas, rather than in Omaha (Filing No. 42).

Defendants filed a

brief in opposition to the motion for protective order (Filing
No. 45).

Plaintiffs then filed a reply brief in support of their

motion, to which they attached three affidavits outlining the
difficulties they would have if required to attend depositions in
Nebraska (Filing No. 46).

The Court granted the motion for

protective order, ruling quickly so that the parties could be on

notice where the depositions, scheduled for November 28 and 29,
2011, would take place.
The Court understands that the depositions did not take
place as scheduled.

In light of defendants’ objection that they

did not have an opportunity to respond to plaintiffs’ affidavits
attached to plaintiffs’ reply brief, the Court will grant
defendants’ motion to file a surreply brief in response to
plaintiffs’ reply brief and accompanying affidavits.

The Court

will stay its protective order pending defendants’ surreply.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1)

The order granting plaintiffs’ motion for

protective order (Filing No. 48) is stayed; and
2)

Defendants shall file a surreply brief with the

Court responding to plaintiffs’ reply brief and affidavits by
December 6, 2011.
DATED this 29th day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-2-