Trehel Corporation v. W.S. Agee Grading Contractor, Inc., No. 1:2012cv00054 - Document 18 (N.D. Ga. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying as moot 15 Motion to Quash and 15 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 7/11/2014. (bdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION TREHEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. 1:12-cv-54-WSD W.S. AGEE GRADING CONTRACTOR, INC., Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant W.S. Agee Contractor Inc. s ( Defendant ) Motion to Quash Plaintiff Trehel Corporation s ( Plaintiff ) Subpoenas, and Defendant s Motion for Protective Order [15]. On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Confirm the Final Arbitration Award. On March 30, 2012, the Court issued an Order confirming the Amended Arbitration Award, dated September 7, 2011, entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant, and awarded Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2012, this action was terminated. On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice to take the depositions of Defendant and Danny Agee, and subpoenaed them to produce certain documents related to the arbitration between the parties, and the subsequent civil action filed in this Court. Also on September 30, 2013, Defendant moved to quash the subpoenas related to the depositions, and requested the Court to enter a Protective Order. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff replied to the Defendant s Motion, arguing that it should be denied as moot because Defendant complied with the subpoenas by providing testimony and some documents. The Plaintiff represents that there are no remaining issues raised in the Defendant s Motion to Quash at this time. On July 1, 2014, Defendant s counsel informed the Court s courtroom deputy that Defendant agreed that the Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order should be denied as moot. I. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant s Motion to Quash Plaintiff s Subpoenas, and Defendant s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED AS MOOT [15]. SO ORDERED this 11th day of July 2014. 2
]]>
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.
