Forsberg v. Pefanis et al, No. 1:2007cv03116 - Document 296 (N.D. Ga. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 285 Motion for Reconsideration and granting 287 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 3/30/10. (bse)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Evangelina Forsberg, Plaintiff, v. James Pefanis, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-cv-03116-JOF OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant Pefanis motion for reconsideration [285] and Defendant Pefanis motion for leave to file excess pages [287]. On February 18, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff s emergency motion to compel against Defendant Pefanis. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Pefanis at that time unrepresented by counsel filed a motion seeking leave of the court to depose non-party David Popke, a former employee of AME Financial Corp. In an order dated March 2, 2010, the court denied Defendant Pefanis request to depose Mr. Popke, noting that Mr. Popke had left AME s employ in December 2007, long before the relevant time period for Plaintiff s motion to compel. Several days later, Defendant Pefanis asked the court to reconsider its order. Defendant Pefanis argued that Mr. Popke might have AO 72A (Rev.8/82) information relevant to AME s January 1, 2008, journal entry. Having considered Defendant Pefanis motion, the court DENIES it. On March 9, 2010, Defendant Pefanis submitted a brief demonstrating compliance with the court s February 18, 2010, order. In conjunction with that brief, Defendant Pefanis submitted the instant motion for leave to file excess pages. The court GRANTS Defendant Pefanis motion for leave to file excess pages [287]. Conclusion The court DENIES Defendant Pefanis motion for reconsideration [285] and GRANTS Defendant Pefanis motion for leave to file excess pages [287]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March 2010. /s J. Owen Forrester J. OWEN FORRESTER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

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.