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.

Medee Geothermal Venture I v. Lassen Municipal Utility District

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


December 21, 2012

MEDEE GEOTHERMAL VENTURE I, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LASSEN MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

This matter came before the court on December 14, 2012, for hearing on defendant's motion to compel site inspection (Doc. No. 39) and motion to compel discovery responses. (Doc. No. 38.) Robert Mitchell, Esq. and Jamie Hogenson, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Sean Neal, Esq. and James Schacht, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendant.

At the conclusion of the December 14, 2012 hearing, the undersigned ordered the parties to submit further briefing with respect to the remaining unresolved discovery disputes. (Doc. No. 46.) Defendant submitted its brief on December 18, 2012. (Doc. No. 47.) Plaintiff submitted its brief on December 20, 2012, wherein plaintiff's counsel represents to the court that since the filing of defendant's brief on December 18, 2012, the parties have resolved their dispute concerning Request for Production Number 33, plaintiff has served Supplemental Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories Numbers 4 and 9, and that plaintiff has produced additional documents responsive to the remaining requests for production at issue. (Doc. No. 48 at 5.)

Accordingly, upon consideration of the parties' arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth in detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's November 20, 2012 motion to compel site inspection (Doc. No.

37) is granted;

2. The site inspection shall take place on January 18, 2013, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and will not exceed eight hours in length but shall be conducted in an expeditious manner so as not to unnecessarily consume time;

3. Defendant's November 20, 2012 motion to compel discovery responses (Doc. No. 38) is denied as having been rendered moot by plaintiff's supplemental responses*fn1 ; and

4. The requests for imposition of sanctions by both parties are denied.


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.