U.S. v. Sabit, 14-20779. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190308638
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING NOVEMBER 30, 2018 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER (DOC. #206) DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS (DOC. #203) PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . The Court concludes that, under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), there is no palpable defect by which the Court and the Parties have been misled by its Order of November 16, 2018 (ECF #206), which also references its Order of October 10, 2018 (ECF #202). The Court further concludes that no defect would result in a different disp
Summary: ORDER DENYING NOVEMBER 30, 2018 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER (DOC. #206) DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS (DOC. #203) PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . The Court concludes that, under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), there is no palpable defect by which the Court and the Parties have been misled by its Order of November 16, 2018 (ECF #206), which also references its Order of October 10, 2018 (ECF #202). The Court further concludes that no defect would result in a different dispo..
More
ORDER DENYING NOVEMBER 30, 2018 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER (DOC. #206) DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS (DOC. #203)
PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.
The Court concludes that, under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), there is no palpable defect by which the Court and the Parties have been misled by its Order of November 16, 2018 (ECF #206), which also references its Order of October 10, 2018 (ECF #202).
The Court further concludes that no defect would result in a different disposition of the case.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
