Summary
denying motion to quash subpoenas issued by another district court based on a lack of jurisdiction, but noting that "because defendants have also sought a protective order with respect to the information sought by these subpoenas, our review of this matter has not yet concluded"
Summary of this case from Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-220.
October 18, 2010
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2010, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoenas to Defense Experts Dr. Perez and Dr. Steiner (Dkt. No. 95) filed September 7, 2010; upon consideration of Plaintiff's Brief Contra Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoenas to Defense Experts Dr. Perez and Dr. Steiner (Dkt. No. 99) filed September 15, 2010; upon consideration of Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoenas to Defense Experts Dr. Perez and Dr. Steiner (Dkt. No. 103) filed September 22, 2010; and for the reasons expressed in the foregoing Memorandum,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to quash is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for protective order is GRANTED.