IN RE OHIO EXECUTION PROTOCOL LITIGATION, 2:11-cv-1016. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20161219a98
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER ON ALABAMA SUBPOENAS MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This capital 1983 case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for an Order that Fourteen Calendar Days is a Reasonable Time within which to Comply with Rule 45 Subpoena (ECF No. 821). Defendants have no objections (ECF No. 826) and the Motion is therefore GRANTED. This is necessarily without barring any objections which may be made by the person or entity subpoenaed. In examining the form of subpoenas attache
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER ON ALABAMA SUBPOENAS MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This capital 1983 case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for an Order that Fourteen Calendar Days is a Reasonable Time within which to Comply with Rule 45 Subpoena (ECF No. 821). Defendants have no objections (ECF No. 826) and the Motion is therefore GRANTED. This is necessarily without barring any objections which may be made by the person or entity subpoenaed. In examining the form of subpoenas attached..
More
DECISION AND ORDER ON ALABAMA SUBPOENAS
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This capital § 1983 case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for an Order that Fourteen Calendar Days is a Reasonable Time within which to Comply with Rule 45 Subpoena (ECF No. 821). Defendants have no objections (ECF No. 826) and the Motion is therefore GRANTED. This is necessarily without barring any objections which may be made by the person or entity subpoenaed.
In examining the form of subpoenas attached to the Motion, the Court notes that they do not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iv). Use of the subpoenas in their present form risks a motion to quash on that basis.
Source: Leagle
