HILL v. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., 2:13-cv-388. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20141015j34
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. On October 10, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to quash the trial subpoena that Plaintiff issued on September 29, 2014. (ECF No. 38.) The September 29, 2014 trial subpoena is directed to a Corporate Representative of Defendant. (ECF No. 36.) After Defendant filed the motion to quash this subpoena, Plaintiff then filed notice of issuance of a second subpoena; this second subpoena is also directed to a Corporate Representative of Defendant. (ECF No. 40.) B
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. On October 10, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to quash the trial subpoena that Plaintiff issued on September 29, 2014. (ECF No. 38.) The September 29, 2014 trial subpoena is directed to a Corporate Representative of Defendant. (ECF No. 36.) After Defendant filed the motion to quash this subpoena, Plaintiff then filed notice of issuance of a second subpoena; this second subpoena is also directed to a Corporate Representative of Defendant. (ECF No. 40.) Bo..
More
ORDER
GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.
On October 10, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to quash the trial subpoena that Plaintiff issued on September 29, 2014. (ECF No. 38.) The September 29, 2014 trial subpoena is directed to a Corporate Representative of Defendant. (ECF No. 36.) After Defendant filed the motion to quash this subpoena, Plaintiff then filed notice of issuance of a second subpoena; this second subpoena is also directed to a Corporate Representative of Defendant. (ECF No. 40.) Both subpoenas seek to compel the Corporate Representative to appear and testify at trial. Because the second subpoena supersedes the first subpoena, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion to quash. (ECF No. 38.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
