U.S. v. Shipley, 13-cv-05721-WHO. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150407c72
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE Re: Dkt. No. 177 WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to my Standing Order For Civil Cases, intervenors' discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 177) should have been submitted as a joint statement of five pages or less and not as a noticed motion. Accordingly, the May 13, 2015 hearing on that motion is VACATED. Defendants DGSI Technologies shall file a five page response, double-spaced, to the discovery dispute only on or before Monday April 13, 2015. If I find
Summary: ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE Re: Dkt. No. 177 WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to my Standing Order For Civil Cases, intervenors' discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 177) should have been submitted as a joint statement of five pages or less and not as a noticed motion. Accordingly, the May 13, 2015 hearing on that motion is VACATED. Defendants DGSI Technologies shall file a five page response, double-spaced, to the discovery dispute only on or before Monday April 13, 2015. If I find t..
More
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE Re: Dkt. No. 177
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
Pursuant to my Standing Order For Civil Cases, intervenors' discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 177) should have been submitted as a joint statement of five pages or less and not as a noticed motion.
Accordingly, the May 13, 2015 hearing on that motion is VACATED.
Defendants DGSI Technologies shall file a five page response, double-spaced, to the discovery dispute only on or before Monday April 13, 2015. If I find that further briefing or a hearing is necessary, I will advise the parties of that. Otherwise, the discovery dispute will be deemed submitted. I will address the sanctions motion at a later time if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
