Thomas v. City of Philadelphia, 17-4196. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190122f41
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER GENE E.K. PRATTER , District Judge . AND NOW , this 17th day of January, 2019, upon consideration of the defendants' Motion to Enforce Subpoena (Doc. No. 51), Ms. Bluestine's Response (Doc. No. 53), and the defendants' Reply (Doc. No. 55), and following a telephone conference with the parties held on January 15, 2019 and the Court's in camera review of the documents at issue, it is ORDERED that the defendants' Motion (Doc. No. 51) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follow
Summary: ORDER GENE E.K. PRATTER , District Judge . AND NOW , this 17th day of January, 2019, upon consideration of the defendants' Motion to Enforce Subpoena (Doc. No. 51), Ms. Bluestine's Response (Doc. No. 53), and the defendants' Reply (Doc. No. 55), and following a telephone conference with the parties held on January 15, 2019 and the Court's in camera review of the documents at issue, it is ORDERED that the defendants' Motion (Doc. No. 51) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows..
More
ORDER
GENE E.K. PRATTER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2019, upon consideration of the defendants' Motion to Enforce Subpoena (Doc. No. 51), Ms. Bluestine's Response (Doc. No. 53), and the defendants' Reply (Doc. No. 55), and following a telephone conference with the parties held on January 15, 2019 and the Court's in camera review of the documents at issue, it is ORDERED that the defendants' Motion (Doc. No. 51) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Ms. Bluestine shall produce the four documents she withheld from her production, Bates labelled Bluestine 060-066; and
2. Ms. Bluestine need not produce un-redacted versions of the documents she already produced.
Source: Leagle
