Legal Opinion
AUSA v. Bartmann
District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Decided December 27, 2001No. Nos. 99-CV-825KJ, 00-CV-111KJPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
JOYNER, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents by Defendant Chase Securities, Inc. (“CSI”). [Doc. No. 200]. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case on September 30, 1999. The complaint asserts various claims under the 1934 Securities Act, the Oklahoma Securities Act, and various tort claims under Oklahoma law. CSI filed its answer to the complaint on February 1, 2000. See Doc. Nos. 36 and 123.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Medical Imaging Centers of America, Inc. v. LichtensteinDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1996
- Mishkin v. AgeloffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Tobias Holdings, Inc. v. Bank United Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Sg Cowen Securities Corporation Rehan Syed v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Thomas Randall, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Real Party in Interest. Rational Software Corporation and Paul D. Levy v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Tom, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re CFS-Related Securities Fraud LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2001