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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

17-112 - Anthony California, Inc. v. Moran et al

Download Files


Document in Context
17-112 - Anthony California, Inc. v. Moran et al
May 9, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - On or before May 16, 2018, Plaintiff shall file any motion, if any, challenging Defendants' objections to the Plaintiff's proposed subpoena for service on Raymour and Flanigan; and Defendants shall file any motion, if any, to include an Attorney Eyes Only provision in the parties' protective order for this litigation. A response to any motion filed under this paragraph shall be filed on or before May 25, 2018. No reply shall be filed absent leave of the court for good cause shown. The parties' joint motion to modify, (Filing No. 27), is granted in part. The current case progression deadlines, including the trial and pretrial conferences settings, are vacated pending further order of the court. Note: Discovery is not stayed - only the deadlines for completing it are vacated. A telephonic conference with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held on August 21, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the outcome of the parties' ongoing effort to specifically identify which lamps sold by Raymour and Flanigan are actually at issue in this case and their discovery related to those lamps. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case, (see Filing No. 19), to participate in the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (KLF)
July 5, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting 47 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl)
August 22, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for issuance of a third-party subpoena, (Filing No. 39), is granted in part and denied in part: a. Topics 6, 7, 11 & 12 will be limited to the years 2014 to 2016. b. Documents will be produced as "Attorneys' Eyes Only" and in accordance with case protective order until the parties are able to review and challenge those designations as needed. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply brief, (Filing No. 49), is denied. Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's motion for leave, (Filing No. 50), is granted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (KLF)