Marshall v. City of Reno Police Department et al
Filing
45
ORDER denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. It appears that Plaintiff did not seek the audiotape and/or transcript during discovery in this case and Plaintiff's Motion does not contain the certification required by FRCP 37(a)(1) and LR 26-7(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 3/10/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA GERALD W. MARSHALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LIEUTENANT BRUCE KIRBY, ) in his individual capacity, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________) 3:07-CV-222-RAM MINUTES OF THE COURT March 10, 2009
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. McQUAID, JR., U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: JENNIFER COTTER REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. #41) and Defendant has opposed the Motion (Doc. #42). Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of the audiotape and/or transcript of the trial in the City of Reno v. Marshall case in the Reno Municipal Court. It appears that Plaintiff did not seek the audiotape and/or transcript during discovery in this case and Plaintiff's M0tion does not contain the certification required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LR 26-7(b). Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #41) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By: /s/ Deputy Clerk
]]>
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?
