MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC et al
| TEHSIN KHALIQ, KAMRAN KHALIQ, RIZWAN KHALIQ, YASIR AZIZ, NAURIN KHALIQ, JENNY CHRISTIANA LOVBLOM, IRFAN KHALIQ, IMRAN KHALIQ and IMTIAZ BEDUM |
| COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC |
| MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC |
| 1:2019mc00148 |
| September 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| John D Bates |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 REPLY to opposition to motion re #1 MOTION to Compel filed by YASIR AZIZ, IMTIAZ BEDUM, IMRAN KHALIQ, IRFAN KHALIQ, KAMRAN KHALIQ, NAURIN KHALIQ, RIZWAN KHALIQ, TEHSIN KHALIQ, JENNY CHRISTIANA LOVBLOM. (McGill, Matthew) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE re #1 MOTION to Compel filed by COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(ztd) |
| Filing 5 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by YASIR AZIZ, IMTIAZ BEDUM, IMRAN KHALIQ, IRFAN KHALIQ, KAMRAN KHALIQ, NAURIN KHALIQ, RIZWAN KHALIQ, TEHSIN KHALIQ, JENNY CHRISTIANA LOVBLOM (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(McGill, Matthew) |
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of #4 respondent's motion for leave to file response out of time and #5 plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall respond by not later than October 14, 2019; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their motion to compel by not later than October 29, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 10/22/2019. (lcjdb2)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Extension of Time by COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(ztd) |
|
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of #3 respondent's motion for enlargement of time to respond to the third-party subpoena, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall respond by not later than October 4, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 10/10/2019. (lcjdb2)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 MOTION to Compel by COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC (ztd); ("Let this be filed" signed 10/8/19 by Judge John D. Bates) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Respondent shall respond by not later than 9/262019. (jth) |
|
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of #2 respondent's consent motion for extension of time to respond to the third-party subpoena, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall respond by not later than September 26, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 09/27/2019. (lcjdb2)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Extension of Time by COOKE LEGAL GROUP, PLLC (ztd) |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Compel by YASIR AZIZ, IMTIAZ BEDUM, IMRAN KHALIQ, IRFAN KHALIQ, KAMRAN KHALIQ, NAURIN KHALIQ, RIZWAN KHALIQ, TEHSIN KHALIQ, JENNY CHRISTIANA LOVBLOM (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Declaration of Noah P. Sullivan, #4 Exhibit 1, #5 Exhibit 2, #6 Exhibit 3, #7 Exhibit 4, #8 Exhibit 5, #9 Exhibit 6, #10 Exhibit 7, #11 Exhibit 8, #12 Exhibit 9) (ztth) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
