Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-103 - VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HARTFORD IRON & METAL INC., et al.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-103 - VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HARTFORD IRON & METAL INC., et al.
April 19, 2016
PDF | More
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'SORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL - For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Order was clearly erroneous in denying Valley Forge's Motion to Compel. Therefore, under Rule 72(a), the Court MODIFIES the Magistrate Judge's Order (Filing No. 15) to GRANT IN PART Valley Forge's Motion to Compel. Keramida is ORDERED to respond to Valley Forge's subpoena within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. In light of the Court's Rule 45 obligation to protect non-parties from undue burden and expense, and after considering the factors listed in Rule 26(b)(1), the Court determines that it would be an undue burden to require non-party Keramida to respond to document requests 7 and 17 in Valley Forge's subpoena. Therefore, Valley Forge's Motion to Compel is DENIED as to these two requests. The Court declines to modify or set aside the Magistrate Judge's Order regarding the parties' requests for sanctions and Valley Forge's motion to strike. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/19/2016. (JLS)
April 25, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AND ORDER DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE - The Court OVERRULES Valley Forge's objection to theMagistrate Judge's Order on the Motion to Show Cause (Filing No. 68) and GRANTS Hartford Iron's and Keramida's Joint Motion to Strike (Filing No. 76). (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/25/2018. (BRR)