Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BOWMAN v. CROSSFIT, INC., A-14-CV-771-LY-ML. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Texas Number: infdco20150924e09 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARK LANE , Magistrate Judge . On this day the Magistrate Court held a hearing on Colter Bowman's Opposed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant CrossFit, Inc. [Dkt. #18] and CrossFit, Inc.'s Opposed, Expedited Motion to Compel the Depositions of Colter Bowman and Austin Ozone. [Dkt. #25]. Both parties were represented by counsel. On considering the briefing, the argument of counsel, the applicable law, and the case file as a whole, It is ORDERED that Defendant Cross
More

ORDER

On this day the Magistrate Court held a hearing on Colter Bowman's Opposed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant CrossFit, Inc. [Dkt. #18] and CrossFit, Inc.'s Opposed, Expedited Motion to Compel the Depositions of Colter Bowman and Austin Ozone. [Dkt. #25]. Both parties were represented by counsel. On considering the briefing, the argument of counsel, the applicable law, and the case file as a whole,

It is ORDERED that Defendant CrossFit, Inc's Opposed, Expedited Motion to Compel the Depositions of Colter Bowman and Austin Ozone. [Dkt. #25] is GRANTED.

In light of the Magistrate Court's order granting the Motion to Compel the depositions, the parties reached a scheduling agreement, stated on the record in open court at the September 22, 2015 hearing, that the depositions will take place on September 23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., with the deposition of Bowman in his individual capacity and continuing to the deposition of Bowman as a representative of Austin Ozone with as much efficiency as possible, and will continue as needed on September 25, 2015. As agreed by the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED.

After presenting argument for and against Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant CrossFit, Inc. [Dkt. #18] at the September 22, 2015 hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning this motion, the details of which were stated on the record in open court. In sum, Plaintiff agreed to narrow the scope of the pending discovery requests as stated on the record at the hearing, and Defendant agreed to produce documents and/or objections in response to the requests, as narrowed by the agreement of the parties at the hearing, on or before October 2, 2015.

In light of this agreement, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents [Dkt. #18] is DISMISSED as MOOT.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer