Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Lewin & Lewin
-
Order | Filed: May 19, 2024 | Entered: May 19, 2024 US DOMINION, INC. et al v. MY PILLOW, INC. et al
Assault Libel & Slander | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion for Hearing Set/Reset Hearings
MINUTE ORDER. The 214 Motion for Status Conference is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a video status conference on May 31, 2024 at 10 AM. So ORDERED by Judge Carl J. Nichols on May 19, 2024. (lccjn2)
-
Filed: May 16, 2024 | Entered: May 16, 2024 Boim et al v. American Muslims for Palestine et al
890(Other Statutory Actions) | Illinois Northern
Response
RESPONSE by Redshift Pro, LLCin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Joyce Boim, Stanley Boim to compel deposition of non-party RedShift Pro, LLC
Presented before Magistrate Judge
409 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kapitan, Rima) (Entered: 05/16/2024) -
Filed: May 16, 2024 | Entered: May 16, 2024 Boim et al v. American Muslims for Palestine et al
890(Other Statutory Actions) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: The Court has reviewed the parties' joint status report 423 , which reports on the parties' outstanding discovery disputes, their plans for further oral and written discovery, and a percolating discovery dispute over defendants' request that certain discovery be supplemented. For the reasons stated in the motion, the parties' joint motion for extension of time to complete fact discovery 425 is granted, and all fact discovery must be completed by 08/27/2024. Over plaintiffs' objection 428 , the Mosque Foundation's motion for an extension of time to comply with third-party subpoena 422 is granted in part and denied in part. The Mosque Foundation's response to plaintiff's subpoena is due by 05/27/2024. As the docket makes clear, the Foundation failed to meet the original deadline of 04/29/2024 to comply with plaintiffs' subpoena, and it also failed to seek an extension of that deadline before it passed. After plaintiffs moved to enforce the Court's order requiring the Mosque Foundation to make its production 405 , the Foundation filed a response stating that its counsel "had been overly ambitious and mistakenly believed the April 29th deadline was achievable" and that the Foundation "intends to produce responsive material on or before May 13, 2024." 407 2-3. The undersigned relied on that representation to deny plaintiffs' motion to enforce as moot. The Mosque Foundation now seeks until 06/01/2024 to respond to plaintiffs' subpoena, claiming that technical difficulties have impeded its efforts to search for and produce emails that are responsive to the search terms included in the rider to plaintiffs' subpoena. The Court believes that an extension to 06/01/2024 (which is a Saturday) is unwarranted and unreasonable. Most importantly, the Mosque Foundation's motion is not supported by an affidavit or declaration from someone with knowledge about its IT system, or any evidence at all, that explains why the Foundation needed more than two months from the date of the District Judge's order overruling its objections to comply with plaintiffs' subpoena for emails, particularly when the Foundation had been provided with these search terms in the fall of 2022. Second, there is no indication in the motion that the Mosque Foundation or its counsel took any steps to search for and produce responsive emails until relatively recently, despite the fact that this discovery dispute has been pending for nearly a year and a half and this Court denied the Mosque Foundation's motion to quash in September 2023. While the Court understands that the Mosque Foundation was entitled to, and did in fact exercise its right to, appeal that decision to the District Judge, it should have been reasonably foreseeable to the Mosque Foundation in September 2023 that it might be required to run the email searches sought by plaintiffs, just as the District Judge ordered it to do on 03/29/2024. Yet it is readily apparent that the Foundation and its counsel took no steps to prepare for that eventuality, and are now left scrambling to make its responsive production. Because the Court finds that the Mosque Foundation has unduly delayed in responding to plaintiffs' subpoena, the Court will extend the deadline only to 05/27/2024. This is a final extension, and if the Mosque Foundation fails to make a complete responsive production by that date the Court will order it to show cause why it should not be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) for failing to comply with the Court's discovery orders. The Court has reviewed the briefing on plaintiffs' motion to strike [412, 416, 417, 429] and will take the matter under advisement and issue a decision on this motion in connection with its ruling on whether defendants will be required to pay fees and costs in connection with the order of 04/15/2024 401 . A joint status report is due on 07/19/... (truncated)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login