Bankhead v. Village of Newburgh Heights et al

Filing 65

Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court has been informed by defendants counsel that the page initially redacted from Bobby Hoovers personnel records by Wakeman Police Department has been provided to Plaintiff.This being so, there are no lon ger any outstanding issues under defendants motion to quash (Doc. # 48 ). This Court dealt with the subpoena issued to the Cleveland Clinic and that institutions motion to quash (Doc. # 40 ) in a ruling entered January 22, 2010(Doc. # 58 ), and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District has responded to the subpoena issued to it.The motion will be dismissed as moot as it pertains to the subpoenas issued to the Wakeman Police Department and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, and granted as regards the subpoena issued to the Cleveland Clinic. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman on 2/22/10. (W,Jo)

Bankhead v. Village of Newburgh Heights et al

Doc. 65

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Kim Bankhead, Plaintiff v. Village of Newburgh Heights, et al., Defendants

: : : : : : : : :

Case No. 1:08CV2484

Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court has been informed by defendant's counsel that "the page initially redacted from Bobby Hoover's personnel records by Wakeman Police Department has been provided to Plaintiff." This being so, there are no longer any outstanding issues under defendants' motion to quash (Doc. #48). This Court dealt with the subpoena issued to the Cleveland Clinic and that institution's motion to quash (Doc. #40) in a ruling entered January 22, 20101 (Doc. #58), and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District has responded to the subpoena issued to it. The motion will be dismissed as moot as it pertains to the subpoenas issued to the Wakeman Police Department and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, and granted as regards the subpoena issued to the Cleveland Clinic. IT IS SO ORDERED

s/DAVID S. PERELMAN United States Magistrate Judge DATE:
1

February 22, 2010

In that ruling this Court stated that if no appeal was taken from this Court's decision the documents provided for in camera inspection by defendants' counsel would be returned to him. No appeal has been taken and those documents are now being returned to Mr. Calderone.

Dockets.Justia.com