CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, 3:14CV529. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20151217d05
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoena and Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. Nos. 24 and 25). Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendant's motions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection and Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Ben Hau and Motion for a Protective Order, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoena and Motion for a Pro
Summary: ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoena and Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. Nos. 24 and 25). Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendant's motions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection and Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Ben Hau and Motion for a Protective Order, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoena and Motion for a Prot..
More
ORDER
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoena and Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. Nos. 24 and 25). Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendant's motions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection and Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Ben Hau and Motion for a Protective Order,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motions to Quash Subpoena and Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. Nos. 24 and 25) are hereby GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
