Nevada v. United States Department of Labor, 4:16-CV-00731. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20180320f17
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMOS L. MAZZANT , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel's Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #125). Alvarez and her Counsel seek to supplement the Court's record with evidence of her counsel's good faith when violating the Court's Order (Dkt. #125). Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC, however, contend that Alvarez's and her Counsel's motion not onl
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMOS L. MAZZANT , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel's Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #125). Alvarez and her Counsel seek to supplement the Court's record with evidence of her counsel's good faith when violating the Court's Order (Dkt. #125). Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC, however, contend that Alvarez's and her Counsel's motion not only..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMOS L. MAZZANT, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel's Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #125). Alvarez and her Counsel seek to supplement the Court's record with evidence of her counsel's good faith when violating the Court's Order (Dkt. #125). Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC, however, contend that Alvarez's and her Counsel's motion not only violates local procedure but also seeks to inject irrelevant evidence into the Court's contempt analysis (Dkt. #126). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.1
It is therefore ORDERED that Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel's Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #125) is hereby GRANTED, and the motion and the exhibits attached thereto will be considered part of the record regarding Petitioners Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s and Chipotle Services, LLC's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #89).
FootNotes
1. Although Alvarez's local counsel did not technically comply with Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court decides to accept the motion. In doing so, the Court weighs Alvarez's local counsel's effort to confer with opposing counsel, local counsel's reasonable desire to supplement the record by which contempt may be determined, and the immateriality of evidence of good faith to the Court's contempt analysis.
Source: Leagle
