DadgoStar et al v. St Croix Financial Center Inc et al

Filing 2

ORDER - Defendants may file their memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Quash not later than March 1, 2012. As provided in S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, the United States Attorney will have seventeen days from the date the memorandum in opposition is filed to file a reply memorandum in support. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 02/07/12. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
NICHOLAS MANSOOR DADGOSTAR,
et al.
Plaintiffs,

:

Case No. 3:12-mc-003
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vs:
ST. CROIX FINANCIAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This is a miscellaneous case in which United States Air Force employees Michael A. Sumner
and Rebecca Felton seek to quash subpoenas duces tecum ordering them to appear for deposition
at Wright Patterson Air Force Base on February 8, 2012. The case is referred to the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to this Court’s General Order of Assignment and
Reference.
The Motion to Quash was filed February 6, 2012, at 4:22 p.m., leaving just over forty hours
to decide the Motion. The Court therefore attempted to schedule a telephonic hearing. However,
in response to that attempt, the Court received the attached correspondence from William Crabill,
counsel who issued the subpoenas. Based on that correspondence:
1.

The obligation of Mr. Sumner and Ms. Felton to respond to the subpoenas is stayed pending
further order of this Court;

2.

Defendants may file their memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Quash not later than
March 1, 2012. As provided in S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, the United States Attorney will have
1

seventeen days from the date the memorandum in opposition is filed to file a reply
memorandum in support.
To simplify processing of this case, the parties may wish to consider consent under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to decide the Motion to Quash. Consent is voluntary and
must be unanimous; there will be no substantive disadvantages to withholding consent. To preserve
the confidentiality of parties’ decisions on that matter, a decision should be communicated to Deputy
Clerk Kelly Kopf (937-512-1551) who will maintain responses in confidence unless unanimity
occurs.
February 7, 2012.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2