Razaghi v. Razaghi Development Company, 2:18-cv-01622-GMN-CWH. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190107894
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jan. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is defendants' emergency motion for protective order (ECF No. 65), filed on December 31, 2018. Having reviewed the motion, the court finds that expedited consideration is not necessary. The court will stay the subpoenas (Exs. A-D) pending the resolution of this motion for protective order. As such, responses and replies are due in the ordinary course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the subpoenas (Exs. A-D) are STAYED pen
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is defendants' emergency motion for protective order (ECF No. 65), filed on December 31, 2018. Having reviewed the motion, the court finds that expedited consideration is not necessary. The court will stay the subpoenas (Exs. A-D) pending the resolution of this motion for protective order. As such, responses and replies are due in the ordinary course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the subpoenas (Exs. A-D) are STAYED pend..
More
ORDER
C.W. HOFFMAN, JR., Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is defendants' emergency motion for protective order (ECF No. 65), filed on December 31, 2018. Having reviewed the motion, the court finds that expedited consideration is not necessary. The court will stay the subpoenas (Exs. A-D) pending the resolution of this motion for protective order. As such, responses and replies are due in the ordinary course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the subpoenas (Exs. A-D) are STAYED pending the resolution of the motion for protective order (ECF No. 65).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that responses and replies to the emergency motion for protective order (ECF No. 65) are due in the ordinary course.
Source: Leagle
