Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Mestel & Co. Inc.
-
Order | Filed: March 01, 2024 | Entered: March 01, 2024 JOYNER v. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion to Issue Subpoena
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's opposed 69 Motion to Issue Subpoenas. Plaintiff asks the Court to issue subpoenas to assist him in amending his complaint "should the Appellate Court reverse" this Court's 55 Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. But the Court dismissed his case. And because a subpoena may issue only from "the court where the action is pending,...it is axiomatic that a court is not authorized to issue a subpoena in a dismissed case." In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prod. Liability Lit., 16-cv-15471, 2024 WL 128608, at *6 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2024) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2). Plaintiff's concerns about document preservation are better taken up with the subjects of the requested subpoenas. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 69 motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 3/1/2024. (lctjk1)
-
Response | Filed: February 21, 2024 | Entered: February 21, 2024 JOYNER v. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia
Response to motion
RESPONSE re 69 First MOTION to Issue Subpoena Clerk To Seal Documents filed by PATTI AYALA, NATALIE A. FLEMING NOLEN, EVAN M. HARRIS, MESTEL & COMPANY NEW YORK LLC, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Humber, Christopher)
-
Order | Filed: February 12, 2024 | Entered: February 12, 2024 JOYNER v. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 70 Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 60(b), asking the Court to reconsider its Minute Order of February 8, 2024. The Court may reconsider a prior order under Rule 60(b) for, as relevant here, mistake or "any other reason that justifies relief." "[T]he decision to grant or deny a rule 60(b) motion is committed to the discretion of the District Court." Arunachalam v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 20-cv-02362, 2021 WL 3025221, at *1 (Mar. 26, 2021) (citation omitted). "Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and granting...such a motion is...an unusual measure." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff has not satisfied that standard. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 70 motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/12/2024. (lctjk1)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login