Filed: Jun. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Letters — ECF Nos. 436, 437) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is Plaintiffs' Letter Regarding Clarification (ECF No. 436), and Defendants' Letter in Response (ECF No. 437). At the June 1, 2017 status and dispute resolution conference the court granted plaintiffs' request for a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline extending fact discovery until July 31, 2017. The court also granted defendants' request to impose some limitations on the amount and type of disc
Summary: ORDER (Letters — ECF Nos. 436, 437) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is Plaintiffs' Letter Regarding Clarification (ECF No. 436), and Defendants' Letter in Response (ECF No. 437). At the June 1, 2017 status and dispute resolution conference the court granted plaintiffs' request for a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline extending fact discovery until July 31, 2017. The court also granted defendants' request to impose some limitations on the amount and type of disco..
More
ORDER
(Letters — ECF Nos. 436, 437)
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiffs' Letter Regarding Clarification (ECF No. 436), and Defendants' Letter in Response (ECF No. 437).
At the June 1, 2017 status and dispute resolution conference the court granted plaintiffs' request for a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline extending fact discovery until July 31, 2017. The court also granted defendants' request to impose some limitations on the amount and type of discovery the plaintiffs could conduct. The hearing lasted for nearly 3 hours. The courtroom administrator reduced the court's rulings to a short summary. A 117-page hearing transcript memorializes exactly what the court ruled. However, the court is informed that, although provided with excerpts of the hearing transcript, counsel for non-party Matt Hume has stated that "If you wish to serve Mr. Hume with a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum, you will first need to seek clarification or reconsideration of the Minute Order." To take this position after seeing what the court actually said suggests counsel either lacks sufficient litigation experience to recognize that a Minute Order is a brief summary prepared by a court clerk, or that counsel is being deliberately obstreperous. The position taken that apparently necessitates this order has interrupted the court's work on matters for other litigants waiting their turn for decisions, and is frankly disrespectful. To foreclose any further need for "reconsideration" or "clarification," yes, counsel, the court authorized service of a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum on Matt Hume. If counsel's intention was to delay or prevent the discovery from going forward by the passage of the time it would take the court to consider the matter, the tactic will fail. If necessary, the court will grant plaintiffs an extension of time to obtain this discovery.
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs are authorized to serve a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to secure the testimony of Matt Hume, and obtain discoverable documents.
