Dyson v. Bayer Corporation, 4:17CV2584 SNLJ. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20180110b23
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order on December 14, 2017 seeking to prohibit the taking to depositions noticed by defendants (#38). While this matter was being briefed, Bayer sent notices cancelling the depositions because they have been postponed by order of a California Superior Court in Alameda County and the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs argue in their reply
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order on December 14, 2017 seeking to prohibit the taking to depositions noticed by defendants (#38). While this matter was being briefed, Bayer sent notices cancelling the depositions because they have been postponed by order of a California Superior Court in Alameda County and the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs argue in their reply m..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., District Judge.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order on December 14, 2017 seeking to prohibit the taking to depositions noticed by defendants (#38). While this matter was being briefed, Bayer sent notices cancelling the depositions because they have been postponed by order of a California Superior Court in Alameda County and the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs argue in their reply memorandum that the Bayer Defendants have waived their personal jurisdiction defense in this case because they are actively pursuing other defenses that require this Court to have personal jurisdiction. That matter has been briefed as part of the parties' briefing on plaintiffs' motion to remand. Thus, to the extent plaintiffs seek an order from the Court regarding that waiver, the Court declines to rule on that matter with respect to this motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a protective order (#38) is DENIED as moot.
Source: Leagle
