Louisiana Scrap Metals Recycling Corporation et al v. Reliant Recycling, LLC, No. 2:2022cv02822 - Document 28 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 11 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. IT IS ORDERED that The Magistrate Judge's order granting limited and restricted expedited discovery prior to the November 1, 2022 preliminary injunction hearing is neither clearly erroneous nor unreasonable, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/12/2022.(Reference: 22-2833)(pp).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Louisiana Scrap Metals Recycling Corporation et al v. Reliant Recycling, LLC Doc. 28 Case 2:22-cv-02822-ILRL-KWR Document 28 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LOUISIANA SCRAP METALS RECYCLING CORPORATION, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 22-2822 C/W 22-2833 RELIANT RECYCLING, LLC SECTION: “B” (4) ORDER AND REASONS Before the court are Reliant Recycling, LLC’s (“Reliant”) appeal from and objections to the magistrate’s September 15, 2022 ruling at record document 40 in the consolidated action 222833, Louisiana Scrap Metals Recycling Corporation (“LA Scrap”) and Derryl Himel’s (“Himel”) opposition memorandum, and Reliant’s reply memorandum. Rec. Docs. 11, 20, 25 in lead action 22-2822 c/w 22-2833. Considering the entire record, argument of parties, and applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s order granting limited and restricted expedited discovery prior to the November 1, 2022 preliminary injunction hearing is neither clearly erroneous nor unreasonable. 2. The Magistrate Judge’s order limiting the scope and revisions to written discovery requests by defendants LA Scrap and Himel are neither clearly erroneous nor unreasonable by further clarifying that the limitations on such discovery concern only the currently known documents and information misappropriated and used by defendants. 3. The Magistrate Judge’s order that grants three separate depositions of three identified Reliant witnesses prior to the preliminary injunction hearing is found neither clearly erroneous nor unreasonable provided however that each deposition is limited to one-hour apiece and concern Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-02822-ILRL-KWR Document 28 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 2 only the currently known documents and information misappropriated and used by defendants and Reliant’s responses to the aforementioned written discovery requests as limited and restricted by the Magistrate Judge, her protective order at record document 41, and further limited by this order. 4. Substantive good faith objections made to questions during the depositions at issue that allege a violation of the foregoing orders and FRCP 1 shall be presented directly to the undersigned for ruling, if needed, during the deposition by calling 504-589-7555. 5. In affirming the Magistrate Judge’s expedited discovery orders, parties are directed to meet and confer within 24 hours of entry of this order to schedule expedited responses to noted outstanding written discovery requests and depositions. Given the multiple number of attorneys on each side, including those with mutual interests, the Court will not entertain any further extension requests of matters set forth in Rec. Doc. 34 that allege as basis scheduling conflicts by either attorneys or parties of record. New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of October 2022 _______________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
