Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Carter Grants Defendent's Ex Parte Application in Barnett v. Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:18 PM
Original message
Judge Carter Grants Defendent's Ex Parte Application in Barnett v. Obama
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 02:23 PM by WeDidIt
And the hits just keep on rolling in:

The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery

"<snip>

Before the Court is Defendants Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery (the
"Motion"). The Court finds the Motion to be appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED. R.
CIV. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers thereon, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Motion."

<snip>

"All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants Motion to
Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction fo
Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss."

<snip>


Orly is having a very bad week.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Carter will be dismissing this case on October 5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here comes the Judge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does this mean
there will be no discovery until the motion to dismiss is decided?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Except discovery pertinent to arguing against the motion to dismiss
That's why it's limited.

Unfortunately for Taitz, her list of items for discovery in her fishing expedition has no bearing on the motion to dismiss, though she will try any way.

she's going to get sanctioned by Land some time soon in Georgia, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. The plaintiff uses their title but not the title of the defendant?
Bunch of racist shankapotamuses!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC