Rouser v. White, et al
Filing
498
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/2/10 ORDERING that Defendants' Request to vacate evidentiary heraing 495 is DENIED. Defendants have filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. In this reply, defendants raise several objections that will be heard at the hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to procure Ms. Morgenstern's appearance at the hearing, these objections will be moot. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. THEO WHITE, et al., Defendants. / On February 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing to obtain testimony of Lisa Morgenstern along with their opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. On February 8, 2010, the court granted defendants motion. In so doing, the court postponed the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction from February 22, 2010 to March 3, 2010 so that defendants could subpoena Ms. Morgenstern. On March 1, 2010, defendants filed a motion to vacate the evidentiary hearing, Doc. 495. Defendants indicate in their request that they have "released [Ms. Morgenstern] from her 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM ROUSER, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-93-0767 LKK GGH P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
subpoena." Id. On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' request to vacate the evidentiary hearing, Doc. 496. In this opposition, plaintiff indicates that he believes Ms. Morgenstern has "already made arrangements to be present at the hearing and . . . is willing to testify." Plaintiff further expects Ms. Morgenstern to "testify that on those few occasions [where] she has been able to lead services: (1) the inmates consistently have been released late; (2) the inmates were unaware that Ms. Morgenstern was at the prison and that services would occur; and (3) defendants have ended services prior to the scheduled end time without any explanation." For the foregoing reasons, the court orders that defendants' request to vacate the evidentiary hearing, Doc. 495, is DENIED. Defendants have filed a reply to plaintiff's opposition. In this reply, defendants raise several objections that will be heard at the hearing. If plaintiff is unable to procure Ms. Morgernstern's appearance at the hearing, these objections will be moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 2, 2010.
2
]]>
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.
Why Is My Information Online?
