REESE v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 2:13-cv-0559 JAM DAD. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150324a84
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . On March 20, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed the deposition limit and motion to compel. Attorney Stewart Katz appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and attorneys John Whitefleet and Taylor Rhoan appeared on behalf of the defendants. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . On March 20, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed the deposition limit and motion to compel. Attorney Stewart Katz appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and attorneys John Whitefleet and Taylor Rhoan appeared on behalf of the defendants. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1...
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
On March 20, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed the deposition limit and motion to compel. Attorney Stewart Katz appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and attorneys John Whitefleet and Taylor Rhoan appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed the ten deposition limit (Dkt. No. 32) is granted in part and denied in part as stated on the record; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33) is denied without prejudice to renewal.
Source: Leagle
