Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tatmon v. Hartley

September 8, 2009

PERRY L. TATMON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has before it a Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 75.) The time period for filing objections to the Report has passed without either party filing an objection. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and having independently reviewed the record in this case, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation reflects an appropriate application of the law to the facts of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. The Court will also set a pretrial schedule, which the parties are ordered to follow, unless it is superseded by a subsequent order.

ORDER

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 75) is ADOPTED in full.

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Docket No. 7) is DENIED;

B. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Docket No. 8) is DENIED;

C. Plaintiff's Request for: Order to Show Cause Temporary Restraining Order and Protective Order (Docket No. 9) is DENIED;

D. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Motion to Strike Defendant's Untimely Answer (Docket Nos. 42 & 43) are DENIED;

E. Plaintiff's Emergency Request to Set a Hearing for Temporary Restraining Order and Protective Order (Docket No. 52) is DENIED; and

F. Defendant Chabak, Hartley, Mayoral, Merrill, Pappenfus and Pennywell's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 53) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the following pretrial schedule shall govern this case unless superseded by a subsequent order:

1. Disclosure of Relevant Documents: On or before September 4, 2009, the parties shall provide each other with a copy of relevant documents in their possession, in a redacted form if necessary for security or privilege purposes; and, if necessary, they shall provide a security/privilege log sufficiently describing any undisclosed relevant documents which are alleged to be subject to nondisclosure. Any party may request that the Court conduct an in camera review of withheld documents or information.

2. Completion of Discovery and Requests for Subpoenas: All discovery shall be completed on or before December 31, 2009. Discovery requests must be made far enough in advance to allow completion of the discovery in accordance with the applicable federal rules prior to this discovery cut-off date. Discovery is exchanged between parties, not filed with the Court. The Court is not involved in discovery unless the parties are unable to work out their differences between themselves as to whether the discovery responses are appropriate. In addition, all requests for subpoenas duces tecum (production of documents by nonparties) must be made by November 27, 2009. No requests for subpoenas duces tecum will be entertained after that date. To obtain a subpoena, Plaintiff must first submit to the Court the names, addresses, and the type ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.