ADHIKARI et al v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY et al
| LUKENDRA GURUNG, KRISHNA PRASAD ADHIKARI, SANJIV GURUNG, SURAJ LAMICHHANE and BIPLAV BHATTA |
| HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES INC and HALLIBURTON COMPANY |
| 1:2020mc00029 |
| May 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Colleen Kollar-Kotelly |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER granting #4 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7/1/2020. (lcckk3)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/31/2020, indicating if a further stay is necessary or if the matter has been resolved. (dot) |
| Filing 4 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re #1 MOTION to Enforce MOTION to Compel by KRISHNA PRASAD ADHIKARI, BIPLAV BHATTA, LUKENDRA GURUNG, SANJIV GURUNG, SURAJ LAMICHHANE (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Fryszman, Agnieszka) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE Pursuant to the Court's Minute Order of June 25, 2020 by KRISHNA PRASAD ADHIKARI, BIPLAV BHATTA, LUKENDRA GURUNG, SANJIV GURUNG, SURAJ LAMICHHANE re Order,,,,,,, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Fryszman, Agnieszka) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Movants to file a Notice on the docket by 6/30/2020, indicating why this Court is the court of compliance, as prescribed by Rule 45(c). (dot) |
|
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Movants' #1 Motion to Enforce Subpoena and Compel Production, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. In reviewing the filing, the Court is not persuaded that it has jurisdiction over the pending motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that "the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i); see Advisory Committee's Notes to 2013 Amendment of Rule 45 ("Under Rules 45(d)(2)(B), 45(d)(3), and 45(e)(2)(B), subpoena-related motions and applications are to be made in the court where compliance is required under Rule 45(c)."). Rule 45(c), which must be satisfied in order for this Court to be the court of compliance, states that "[a] subpoena may command [the] production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A). In their filing, Movants represent that because the subpoenas commanded compliance in Washington, D.C., this Court has jurisdiction. However, Movants do not explain how the subpoenas commanded the production of documents within 100 miles of where Respondents reside, are employed, or regularly transact business. Movants indicate that Rule 45(c) is satisfied because the distance between where the subpoenas were served on the registered agent and where the subpoenas commanded compliance is within the 100-mile boundary. However, Movants do not show why the location of Respondents' registered agent in Delaware is sufficient to satisfy Rule 45(c). Movants shall have until JUNE 30, 2020, to file a Notice on the docket, indicating why this Court is the court of compliance, as prescribed by Rule 45(c). Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6-25-2020. (lcckk3)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Respondents' Failure to Oppose by KRISHNA PRASAD ADHIKARI, BIPLAV BHATTA, LUKENDRA GURUNG, SANJIV GURUNG, SURAJ LAMICHHANE re #1 MOTION to Enforce MOTION to Compel (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Fryszman, Agnieszka) |
| Filing fee received: $ 47, receipt number: 4616103077. (ztd) |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Enforce by KRISHNA PRASAD ADHIKARI, BIPLAV BHATTA, LUKENDRA GURUNG, SANJIV GURUNG, SURAJ LAMICHHANE (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Text of Proposed Order)(ztd) |
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.
