From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tri Invs. Inc. v. Aiken Cost Consultants, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION
Nov 7, 2011
2:11cv4 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2011)

Opinion

2:11cv4

11-07-2011

TRI INVESTMENTS, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIKEN COST CONSULTANTS, INC. and WAYNE BLAIR, Defendants


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of Deposition [# 25]. Plaintiffs move to Quash the deposition of Tom E. Burns, C.P.A. In response to Plaintiffs' motion, Defendants have withdrawn the notice of deposition of Mr. Burns. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot the Motion to Quash [# 25].

Dennis L. Howell

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Tri Invs. Inc. v. Aiken Cost Consultants, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION
Nov 7, 2011
2:11cv4 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Tri Invs. Inc. v. Aiken Cost Consultants, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TRI INVESTMENTS, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIKEN COST CONSULTANTS, INC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION

Date published: Nov 7, 2011

Citations

2:11cv4 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2011)

Citing Cases

Teachey v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

And, courts routinely reject attempts to notice a deposition or subpoena testimony with less than one week of…

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Art Intellect, Inc.

Therefore, Paul has carried his burden to show good cause to quash the subpoena. Compare Mann v. Univ. of…