Jones v. J.S. & T.S., LLC

Filing 46

ORDER denying without prejudice Motion for Protective Order (contained in 45 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 1/23/2012. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-159-DCK
CHRISTENE JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J.S. & T.S., LLC d/b/a
)
NORTH CROSS LANES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding “Defendant’s Motion
For Protective Order And Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To
Take De Benne Esse Depositions Of Dr. Rosacker And Dr. Adham” (Document No. 45) filed
January 20, 2012. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), and immediate review of this response and/or motion is appropriate.
The Court issues this Order to clarify the record and briefing schedule of this matter.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (C)(2), motions may not be included in responsive briefs. The Clerk of
Court has properly construed “Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order And Memorandum Of Law
In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Take De Benne Esse Depositions Of Dr. Rosacker
And Dr. Adham” (Document No. 45) as a brief in response to “Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To
Take De Benne Esse Depositions Of Doctor Rosacker And Doctor Adham” (Document No. 42), and
not as a pending motion. Pursuant to the Court’s previous Order (Document No. 44), Plaintiff’s
reply brief in support of her motion to take additional depositions is due on or before January 23,
2012.
To the extent Defendant seeks to file a motion for protective order or a motion to quash

regarding a deposition of Dr. O’Brien, it may do so as allowed by the Rules, including Local Rule
7.1(B).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order And
Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Take De Benne Esse
Depositions Of Dr. Rosacker And Dr. Adham” (Document No. 45) is properly construed as a
response brief, and is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it requests entry of a
protective order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 23, 2012

2