From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aidnik v. Facility

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 19, 2010
2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)

Opinion

2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM.

November 19, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff has filed a motion for discovery seeking copies of certain investigative reports (#92). The plaintiff has already examined those documents. Accordingly, the motion for discovery is denied. If plaintiff needs to examine the documents again, he should advise the attorney for the defendant. If a mutually agreeable date and time cannot be reached for plaintiff's further review of those documents, and if he needs to do so before trial, plaintiff can petition the court to consider whether or not he should be entitled to another inspection of the documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 18th day of November, 2010.


Summaries of

Aidnik v. Facility

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 19, 2010
2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)
Case details for

Aidnik v. Facility

Case Details

Full title:JEFF AIDNIK, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 19, 2010

Citations

2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010)