Progressive EMU Inc v. Nutrition & Fitness Inc, No. 2:2012cv01079 - Document 59 (N.D. Ala. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: motions to compel and competing proposed protective orders submitted by the parties; the stay of discovery is LIFTED; the parties shall promptly respond to outstanding discovery requests, subject to the terms of the protective order. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 12/7/12. (KGE, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 2012 Dec-07 PM 02:32 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION PROGRESSIVE EMU, INC., f/k/a JOHNSON EMU, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. NUTRITION & FITNESS, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. } } } } } } } } } } } } CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-AR-1079-S MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court has for consideration motions to compel and competing proposed protective orders submitted by the parties. The court has referred the case to mediation with the understanding that a protective order would be entered by the court, and that the stay of discovery would be lifted for the purpose of effectuating mediation. Although this court s Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan provides broad protection during and after mediation, the court cannot avoid its obligation to respond to any violations of the ADR rules or of a protective order such as the one being contemporaneously entered. The said order must be displayed and fully explained to any and all persons who will be bound by it. The parties are admonished to read the protective order carefully, because there are some material differences in the order entered, and the parties competing proposed orders. The stay of discovery is hereby LIFTED. The parties shall promptly respond to outstanding discovery requests, subject to the terms of the protective order. DONE this 7th day of December, 2012. _____________________________ WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. 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.
