RENCHER v. WILLIAMS, 4:11CV1059 RWS. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20120619a13
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. On May 14, 2012, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant's motion to quash and/or motion for protective order [#25] should not be granted. By subsequent Order, plaintiff was granted additional time to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Her response was due on June 15, 2012. On June 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a "motion to quash" and memorandum in support. It appears that plaintiff is trying to claim that defendant has no st
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. On May 14, 2012, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant's motion to quash and/or motion for protective order [#25] should not be granted. By subsequent Order, plaintiff was granted additional time to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Her response was due on June 15, 2012. On June 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a "motion to quash" and memorandum in support. It appears that plaintiff is trying to claim that defendant has no sta..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge.
On May 14, 2012, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant's motion to quash and/or motion for protective order [#25] should not be granted. By subsequent Order, plaintiff was granted additional time to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Her response was due on June 15, 2012. On June 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a "motion to quash" and memorandum in support. It appears that plaintiff is trying to claim that defendant has no standing to file a motion to quash because he is in default. This argument is devoid of merit and insufficient to demonstrate that defendant's motion to quash should not be granted. Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendant's motion to quash should not be granted and the Court finds that the motion is meritorious, the motion to quash will be granted. To the extent plaintiff's "motion to quash" seeks affirmative relief, it will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to quash and/or for protective order [#25] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's "motion to quash" [#38] is denied.
Source: Leagle
