Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00497/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00497-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

EUGENE CRUM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:04CV497-T

) [WO]

STATE OF ALABAMA, GOVERNOR )

BOB RILEY, and the ALABAMA )

DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On 14 April 2005, the court entered an order (Doc. # 53), granting in part and denying

in part the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion To Quash Subpoenas (Doc. # 28). In the order, the

court made findings based upon an extensive and particularized analysis of the defendants’

discovery requests and the plaintiff’s objections. Several subpoenas, most with multiple-part

requests, were attached to the motion, and the court reviewed each of them and considered

all of them in tandem.

On 22 April 2005, the defendants filed a Motion For Reconsideration of the Order

(Doc. # 58), and a Second Motion to Supplement Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s

Renewed Motion to Quash Subpoenas. The supplemental response was also filed on the

same date as a separate document. 

As the defendants indicated in their motion, in considering the plaintiff’s renewed

motion to quash subpoena (Doc. # 28), the court did not review the defendants’ Motion to

Case 2:04-cv-00497-MHT-VPM Document 61 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 2
Supplement Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion (Doc. # 49), because it

was filed under seal and had not then been made a part of the official record in this case. The

court has now reviewed motion and the supplemental response (Doc. # 49) and FINDS that

they do not provide a basis for altering or amending the court’s order. Further, upon

consideration of the subject motion, and second motion to supplement defendants’ response

to the plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 58), the court FINDS that they do not provide a basis for

altering or amending the court’s order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Number 53 (Doc. # 58)

is GRANTED.

2. The defendant’s Second Motion to Supplement Defendants’ Response (Doc.

# 58) is GRANTED.

3. The court’s previous order (Doc. # 53) shall remain in full force and effect.

DONE this 26th day of April, 2005.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00497-MHT-VPM Document 61 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2