Eschert v. City of Charlotte
ORDER denying without prejudice 16 Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoenas Duces Tecum. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 10/17/16. (mga)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-295-FDW-DCK
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant’s Motion For Protective
Order And To Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum” (Document No. 16) filed October 17,
2016. This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C
§636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record,
and the applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion, without prejudice.
This matter is governed by the “Case Management Order” (Document No. 12). The Case
Management Order” provides in pertinent part the following:
Consistent with the spirit, purpose, and explicit directives of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District’s Local Rules, the
Court expects all parties (and counsel) to attempt in good faith to
resolve discovery disputes without the necessity of court
intervention. Failing this, the parties are required, within
fourteen (14) calendar days after a discovery dispute arises, 1 to
schedule and submit to an informal telephonic conference
before the referral magistrate judge (or the presiding district
judge, if the magistrate judge is unavailable prior to the expiration
of the 14 days). The judicial officer presiding over such a
teleconference shall have jurisdiction to: (i) mediate the parties’
own resolution of the dispute; (ii) make a summary legal
determination on the merits of the dispute, if appropriate; (iii)
This time limitation may only be extended with leave of Court for good cause shown, and failure to timely
submit to this procedure will result in the objection being deemed waived. (Document No. 12, p.5, n.4).
require the aggrieved party to file a written motion to compel and/or
set an abbreviated briefing schedule, if appropriate; and (iv) award
appropriate sanctions pursuant to Rule 37.
(Document No. 14, pp.4-5) (emphasis added). It does not appear that the parties have satisfied
the requirements of the “Case Management Order.”
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order And
To Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoenas Duces Tecum” (Document No. 16) is DENIED WITHOUT
Signed: October 17, 2016
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?