WB Construction and Son's, Inc. v. Panhandle Geotechnical & Enviromental, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying as moot 24 Motion to Quash.. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Daneta Wollmann on 9/25/2024. (SC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
WB CONSTRUCTION AND SON'S,
INC.,

5:24-CV-05001-CCT

Plaintiff,
vs.
PANHANDLE GEOTECHNICAL &
ENVIROMENTAL, INC., MICHAEL
OLSEN, MELGAARD CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.,

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

Defendants.

Pending before this court is a Third-Party Objection to Subpoenas Duces
Tecum and Motion to Quash Subpoenas. (Doc. 24). United States District
Court Judge Camela C. Theeler referred the motion to this magistrate judge for
determination. (Doc. 25).
On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Withdrawal
of Subpoenas Duces Tecum advising the court that it was withdrawing its
subpoena duces tecum served on Versatile Construction Solutions and Steven
J. Gunn. (Doc. 27). Good cause appearing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Quash (Doc. 24) is denied a moot.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A), any party may seek reconsideration
of this order before the district court upon a showing that the order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. The parties have fourteen (14) days after service

of this order to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A),
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. See FED. R. CIV. P.
72(a); 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A). Failure to file timely objections will result in
the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Id. Objections must be
timely and specific in order to require review by the district court. Thompson
v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.
1986).
DATED this 25th day of September, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

DANETA WOLLMANN
United States Magistrate Judge