Travelex Insurance Services, Inc. v. Barty

Filing 38

AMENDED ORDER - Plaintiff has requested that the Court slightly modify the language of its May 8, 2018 order (Filing No. 36 ). Plaintiff's request is unopposed. Accordingly, the May 8, 2018 order (Filing No. 36 ) is amended as follows: Plainti ff shall provide Defendant with a list of its customers with whom Defendant had contact and did business with while employed by Plaintiff. Following receipt of the customer list, Defendant shall identify the customers on the list whom she solicited a fter she left Plaintiffs employment, as well as those whom she conducted business with while employed at Arch. Defendant shall identify those customers within thirty (30) days of her receipt of the list from Plaintiff. Defendant shall respond to disc overy related to her activities prior to her employment with Arch, which includes business conducted via her personal email or telephone accounts. The parties shall confer and submit to the Court a revised, proposed protective order which includes an attorneys eyes only provision. The proposed protective order shall be submitted to the Court via email at bazis@ned.uscourts.gov by May 18, 2018. Arch shall produce its communications with Defendant up to May 31, 2017, aswell as Defendants empl oyment documents with Arch. Arch shall produce this information within seven (7) days of the entry of a modified protective order. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed by July 31, 2018. All other caseprogression deadlines remain stayed. Follow ing rulings on summary judgment motions, the parties shall confer to discuss any remaining discovery issues, and then submit a proposed case progression schedule. The proposed case progression schedule shall be emailed to bazis@ned.uscourts.gov within seven (7) days of the Courts ruling on summary judgment motions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (LKO)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA TRAVELEX INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 8:17CV295 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER vs. LYNN BARTY, Defendant. Plaintiff has requested that the Court slightly modify the language of its May 8, 2018 order (Filing No. 36). Plaintiff’s request is unopposed. Accordingly, the May 8, 2018 order (Filing No. 36) is amended as follows: 1. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with a list of its customers with whom Defendant had contact and did business with while employed by Plaintiff. Following receipt of the customer list, Defendant shall identify the customers on the list whom she solicited after she left Plaintiff’s employment, as well as those whom she conducted business with while employed at Arch. Defendant shall identify those customers within thirty (30) days of her receipt of the list from Plaintiff. 2. Defendant shall respond to discovery related to her activities prior to her employment with Arch, which includes business conducted via her personal email or telephone accounts. 3. The parties shall confer and submit to the Court a revised, proposed protective order which includes an attorneys’ eyes only provision. The proposed protective order shall be submitted to the Court via email at bazis@ned.uscourts.gov by May 18, 2018. 4 Arch shall produce its communications with Defendant up to May 31, 2017, as well as Defendant’s employment documents with Arch. Arch shall produce this information within seven (7) days of the entry of a modified protective order. 5. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed by July 31, 2018. All other case progression deadlines remain stayed. Following rulings on summary judgment motions, the parties shall confer to discuss any remaining discovery issues, and then submit a proposed case progression schedule. The proposed case progression schedule shall be emailed to bazis@ned.uscourts.gov within seven (7) days of the Court’s ruling on summary judgment motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 9th day of May, 2018. BY THE COURT: s/ Susan M. Bazis United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?