MOORE v. DAN HOLDINGS, INC. et al
| FELISHA RICH MOORE |
| WILLIAM ZIEFLE, DAN HOLDINGS, INC. and DIVERS ALERT NETWORK, INC. |
| 1:2012cv00503 |
| May 22, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Person |
| UNASSIGNED |
| L. PATRICK AULD |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 04/30/2013, that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Certain Topics Listed in Plaintiff's Amended Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition (Docket Entr y 31 ) and Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Notice to Depose Defendants' Legal Counsel (Docket Entry 33 ) are GRANTED. FURTHER that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)(3) an d 37(a)(5)(A), Plaintiff must show cause why the Court should not order Plaintiff and/or her counsel to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, Defendants incurred in connection with their Motions for Protective Order (Docket Entrie s 31 and 33 ), as follows: (1) on or before May 14, 2013, Defendants either shall file a notice waiving any right to reimbursement of expenses, including attorney's fees, related to said Motions or shall serve Plaintiff with a statement of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, Defendants incurred in connection with said Motions; (2) if Defendants timely serve Plaintiff with such an expense statement, on or before May 28, 2013, Plaintiff either shall file a notice confirming her agreement to pay the expenses claimed by Defendants or shall file a memorandum of not more than 10 pages setting out Plaintiff's argument as to why the Court should not require Plaintiff and/or her counsel to pay such expenses (including any argument challenging the reasonableness of such expenses, along with a certification that Plaintiff has attempted to confer in good faith with Defendants about that subject); (3) if Plaintiff timely files a memorandum contesting pay ment of expenses claimed by Defendants, on or before June 11, 2013, Defendants may file a response of not more than 10 pages; and (4) if Defendants timely file a response, on or before June 18, 2013, Plaintiff may file a reply of not more than five pages. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Entry 41 ) is DENIED, except that, on or before May 14, 2013: (1) Defendants shall respond to Interrogatory No. 4 as limited to any internal complaints, charge s, or lawsuits alleging race discrimination and/or retaliation during the last five years involving anyone who supervised Plaintiff or participated in any alleged employment action directed at Plaintiff; (2) Defendants shall submit to the Court f or in camera inspection the first document listed in their privilege log and a memorandum of not more than three pages explaining how the work product doctrine applies to said document; (3) Defendants shall gather corporate balance sheets covering the period from 2011 to the present or other comparable documents that reasonably would show the corporate Defendants' current net worth, so that they can make immediate service of such material on Plaintiff if later warranted; and (4) the Pa rties shall conduct the deposition of Dan Orr on mutually acceptable terms as to date, time, and location. FURTHER that the Motion to Quash and/or Modify Third-Party Subpoena Served upon Chris Moore (Docket Entry 37 ) and Defendants' M otion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena (Docket Entry 45 ) are DENIED, but the Parties shall conduct the deposition of Chris Moore on or before May 14, 2013, on mutually acceptable terms as to date, time, and location. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the February 27, 2013 Discovery Deadline (Docket Entry 35 ) is DENIED. (Taylor, Abby)
|
|
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/18/2012; that Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time (Docket Entry 16 ) is GRANTED and Defendants shall have until November 14, 2012, to answer Plaintiff's Fi rst Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. FURTHER that Plaintiff and her counsel, including in particular Nicholas J. Sanservino, Jr., of The Noble Law Firm, PLLC, are PLACED ON NOTI CE that any further failure to behave cooperatively and courteously in connection with discovery, any further violation of the spirit and purpose of the discovery rules, and any further submission of materials to the Court that have any imprope r purpose or that lack a proper legal or factual basis will result in action by the Court, including the consideration of any and all available sanctions. FURTHER that the Court reserves the right to consider all of the matters documented in this Order in assessing what, if any, action to take in the event cause again arises to examine the conduct of Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's counsel in this or any other case. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
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 North Carolina Middle 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.
