Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Bylin Heating Systems, Inc. et al v. Thermal Technologies

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 29, 2012

BYLIN HEATING SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On November 8, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of documents and further responses to a first set of discovery requests propounded on defendant, originally noticed for hearing on November 29, 2012. (Dkt. No. 35.) After the hearing was initially continued to December 6, 2012, the court, by stipulation of the parties, ultimately continued the hearing on this motion to December 20, 2012 and ordered the parties to file their joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 251 no later than December 10, 2012. (Dkt. No. 45.) On November 29, 2012, plaintiff filed a second motion to compel production of documents and further responses to additional sets of discovery requests, also noticed for hearing on December 20, 2012. (Dkt. No. 44.)

In the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, the court finds it appropriate to require the parties to address all motions noticed for hearing on December 20, 2012, in a single joint statement prepared pursuant to Local Rule 251. All argument regarding these motions shall be contained in this single joint statement, and the court will not consider any other briefing submitted. However, the joint statement may refer to appropriate declarations and exhibits, filed concurrently with the joint statement, for any necessary factual material.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The parties shall file a single joint statement regarding the discovery motions noticed for hearing on December 20, 2012, in accordance with this order no later than December 10, 2012.

2. The parties shall diligently attempt to narrow their discovery dispute and promptly advise the court if their dispute has been resolved or whether hearing on the motion should be further continued in light of any ruling by the district judge on defendant's motion to withdraw as counsel. If defendant's counsel is permitted to withdraw, an authorized representative of defendant shall be personally present at any hearing on these motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121129

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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