IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 17, 2011
TONY MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF,
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR USA CORP. DBA COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On June 9, 2011, the undersigned conducted a hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel a site inspection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, filed with respect to defendant New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. d/b/a New Balance #0015 ("New Balance"). (See Minutes, June 9, 2011, Dkt. No. 95.) For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the undersigned entered an order holding plaintiff's motion to compel in abeyance in light of New Balance's motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) then-pending before United States District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. On June 16, 2011, Judge Burrell granted New Balance's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of New Balance. (Order, June 16, 2011, Dkt. No. 98; Judgment, June 16, 2011, Dkt. No. 99.)
In light of the order and judgment entered on June 16, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel a site inspection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (Dkt. No. 90) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.