Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 286

RESPONSE to Motion re 280 MOTION to Quash Trial Subpoenas of Mark Chandler and Mallun Yen MOTION for Protective Order from Trial Subpoenas of Mark Chandler and Mallun Yen filed by Eric Albritton. (Patton, Nicholas)

Download PDF
Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 286 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ERIC M. ALBRITTON, Plaintiff v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and RICHARD FRENKEL No. 6:08cv00089 Defendants PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CISCO SYSTEM, INC., MARK CHANDLER AND MALLUN YEN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTION AND MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENAS OF MARK CHANDLER AND MALLUN YEN COMES NOW, Plaintiff Eric Albritton and for his response to Defendant Cisco System, Inc. and Movants Mark Chandler and Mallun Yen's Motion for Protection and Motion to Quash (DE #280), would show as follows: Plaintiff Albritton has withdrawn the trial subpoenas issued to Mark Chandler and Mallun Yen that were subject to Defendant Cisco and Movant's Motion for Protection and Motion to Quash. Cisco and Movant's motions (DE #280) are now moot. Respectfully Submitted, Nicholas H. Patton TX Bar No. 15631000 Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP 4605 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, Texas 75503 903.792.7080 / 903.792.8233 (Fax) Email: Patricia L. Peden LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA L. PEDEN 610 16th Street, Suite 400 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: 510.268.8033 James A. Holmes Texas Bar No. 00784290 THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES HOLMES, P.C. 635 South Main, Suite 203 Henderson, Texas 75654 903.657.2800 / 903.657.2855 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this 3rd day of September, 2009. Nicholas H. Patton 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?