Zimmerman v. Philips North America LLC et al
Filing
17
ORDER denying as moot 1 Petitioner's Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Non-Party Dustin Zimmerman or, in the Alternative, Motion for Modification/Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 3/31/21. (mga)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:20-MC-141-MOC-DCK
DUSTIN ZIMMERMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Petitioner’s “Motion To Quash
Subpoena Served On Non-Party Dustin Zimmerman Or, In The Alternative, Motion For
Modification/Protective Order” (Document No. 1) filed September 8, 2020. This motion has been
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is ripe for
disposition. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the
motion.
By the instant motion, Petitioner sought to quash a subpoena regarding discovery demands
related to a case pending in the Untied States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Philips North America, LLC v. 626 Holdings, Inc., 9:19-CV-81263-RS. This Court was unable to
promptly address Petitioner’s motion.
Since then, discovery in the Florida case has been
completed and a trial is scheduled for May 4, 2021. In addition, Petitioner’s counsel has reported
to the undersigned’s staff that Mr. Zimmerman is no longer listed as a potential witness in the
Florida case and that they now believe the pending motion is moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion To Quash Subpoena Served
On Non-Party Dustin Zimmerman Or, In The Alternative, Motion For Modification/Protective
Order” (Document No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 31, 2021
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?