Nulaid Foods, Inc. v. Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Company, 2:17-cv-1591 MCE DB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180611558
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . This action came before the court on June 7, 2018, for hearing of defendant's motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Michael Cronen appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Avalon Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of the defendant. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's April 9, 2018 motion for a pr
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . This action came before the court on June 7, 2018, for hearing of defendant's motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Michael Cronen appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Avalon Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of the defendant. Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's April 9, 2018 motion for a pro..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
This action came before the court on June 7, 2018, for hearing of defendant's motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Michael Cronen appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Avalon Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's April 9, 2018 motion for a protective order (ECF No. 29) is denied.1
FootNotes
1. At the June 7, 2018 hearing, counsel for defendant asked that, if denied, the motion for a protective order be denied without prejudice as to the future filing of a motion seeking a protective order. Of course, counsel for defendant may again seek a protective order, if appropriate. However, with respect to the April 9, 2018 motion addressing the two specific discovery requests at issue, the motion is denied with prejudice.
Source: Leagle
