Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA"

Transcription

1 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Sai, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No: (ESH) ) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendant, by undersigned counsel, replies as follows in support of its motion for protective order (ECF No. 26) and also opposes Plaintiff s motion to compel production of documents (ECF No. 28) and cross-motion to compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 29 and 30). I. General Background BACKGROUND Plaintiff has filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) and Privacy Act seeking responses to requests for information that he submitted under those statutes to the Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) for information about certain TSA policies and procedures, as well as for information regarding certain incidents involving him at TSA checkpoints at various airports. Plaintiff is separately pursuing a grievance against TSA under the Rehabilitation Act in connection with those incidents based on an alleged disability. As Plaintiff has stated in both the existing Complaint (Compl. 4-5), and in his proposed Amended Complaint (Proposed Am. Compl. 5), this action does not assert a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. To the contrary, that issue still remains at the administrative stage before an 1

2 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 11 office at TSA (the office that handles complaints regarding civil rights issues) that is distinct from TSA s FOIA office. As this action is limited to claims under FOIA (and the Privacy Act to the extent the records sought are about Plaintiff), the issues before the Court are limited to (a) the adequacy of TSA s search for responsive documents subject to FOIA, (b) whether any withholdings, in whole or in part, are supported by applicable FOIA exemptions, and (c) whether TSA reasonably segregated nonexempt from exempt material in connection with any withheld information. The standard practice in a FOIA action, moreover, is for these issues to be addressed by the Court through summary judgment motion(s) after the requests have been processed by the agency according to a schedule set by the Court. As discussed more fully in the Deplitch declaration that accompanied Defendant s opposition to Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 27-1), TSA is still processing the requests at issue in the Complaint and, as to several of the requests, expects to complete that processing within 45 days of the date of the declaration. A schedule for the filing of summary judgment motions, moreover, has not yet been set in this case. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint and its obligation to do so has been stayed by the Court s order dated June 9, 2014, by virtue of Plaintiff having filed a motion for leave to amend his Complaint. II. Plaintiff s Discovery Requests and Defendant s Motion for Protective Order On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff served on Defendant a set of written discovery that consisted of 346 requests for admission as well as at least the same number of interrogatories, if not more. Although the discovery requests refer to a single interrogatory, that interrogatory actually has three discrete parts that seeks information with respect to each of the 346 requests for admission (and, therefore, far exceeds the 25 interrogatory limit under Rule 33). The written discovery, 2

3 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 3 of 11 totaling 33 pages, was accompanied by several attachments consisting of approximately 200 or more pages. Counsel for Defendant advised Plaintiff of Defendant s objection to any discovery in this FOIA action, both in a telephone conversation and through communications, and also advised Plaintiff of Defendant s intention to file a motion for a protective order in response to the discovery requests. Before Defendant filed its motion for protective order, the parties jointly contacted chambers on June 10, 2014, to bring this dispute to the Court s attention and to seek guidance from the Court as to how the Court would like the parties to proceed. The parties were thereafter directed to raise their dispute through the filing of written motions. Accordingly, on June 18, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for protective order, seeking an order that Defendant is not required to respond to any discovery in this action, including requests for admission, that has already been propounded by Plaintiff or that may subsequently be propounded by Plaintiff absent a Court order permitting such requests to be propounded. 1 (ECF No. 26). On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff sent an to undersigned counsel attaching a Request for Production of Documents directed to statements made in the Declaration of Amanda Deplitch attached to Defendant s opposition to Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 27-1). Plaintiff s attaching the discovery requests asked counsel for Defendant to advise if Defendant intend[ed] to object and, if so, to please give a list of times when you are available for conference with the Court. Counsel for Defendant responded by that same day that Defendant objected to this discovery for all of the reasons stated in Defendant s pending motion 1 Plaintiff has recently contacted Defendant to schedule the deposition of Ms. Deplitch, and Defendant has objected for the reasons stated in the pending motion for protective order. Defendant requested in that motion an order precluding any discovery in this action absent leave of Court. That relief also would encompass any request for depositions. 3

4 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 4 of 11 for protective order, which sought as relief an order providing that Defendant is not required to respond to any discovery in this action. Counsel for Defendant also advised that, because the Requests for Production were encompassed within the same dispute over discovery already raised with chambers on June 10, 2014, that Defendant did not believe it was necessary to contact chambers again about this issue (as stated above, the parties already were directed by the Court to address their discovery dispute through motions to the Court). Plaintiff filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 28) that same day, claiming that Ms. Deplitch s declaration contained false statements and that the requested discovery seeks the production of documents specifically calculated to procure evidence as to whether [the declaration] is perjurious or contains other false statements. (ECF No. 28 at 2). Plaintiff also asserted in his motion to compel that undersigned counsel refused to confer on this matter. As the above discussion reflects, that is not correct. Counsel for Defendant provided Plaintiff with Defendant s position, referred Plaintiff to the pending motion for protective order, and also referred Plaintiff to the prior direction received from the Court to address their discovery dispute through motions to the Court. On June 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed his response to Defendant s motion for protective order, cross-moved for an order compelling responses to his Requests for Admission and Interrogatories, and moved for the imposition of sanctions for Defendant s alleged failure to confer regarding the motion for protective order. (ECF No. 29 and 30). The latter assertion is belied by the communications attached to Plaintiff s filing (which reflect that the parties conferred regarding their discovery dispute), the fact that the parties jointly contacted chambers on June 10, 2014 about their dispute, and the fact that the Court thereafter directed Defendant to 4

5 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 5 of 11 proceed with a motion for protective order to the extent Defendant wanted to present the issue for the Court s consideration. The following constitutes Defendant s reply in support of its motion for protective order, opposition to Plaintiff s motions to compel, and opposition to Plaintiff s motion for sanctions. It also constitutes Defendant s response under Rule 34 to the Request for Production served on June 26, ARGUMENT I. The Court Should Grant A Protective Order Precluding Any Discovery In This Action Absent Leave Of Court. As established in Defendant s motion for protective order, discovery is disfavored in FOIA actions and only is permitted in limited circumstances (not present here) in which a plaintiff has raised a sufficient question as to agency affidavits regarding the adequacy of the agency s search, and/or the basis for agency withholdings, in the context of the briefing of summary judgment motions. Contrary to Plaintiff s assertion, Requests for Admission constitute discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus fall within this general prohibition. See, e.g., Walsh v. Jones, Case No (RCL), Order dated Nov. 13, 2013 (ECF No. 24, 42) (granting motion for protective order filed in response to requests for admission in a FOIA action). Even in the rare FOIA action where discovery is considered to be a possibility, moreover, the government must first be permitted to submit its dispositive motion and supporting affidavits and have an opportunity to rebut allegations that its affidavits are insufficient. This case has not yet reached this stage. The requests at issue are still being processed by Defendant and 2 The motion for protective order constituted Defendant s response under Rule 33 and Rule 36 to the Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories that are attached to that motion. 5

6 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 6 of 11 Defendant s obligation to answer the Complaint currently is stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff s pending motion for leave to amend the Complaint. Accordingly, it is premature for Plaintiff to request any discovery. The discovery that Plaintiff has served to date, moreover, has no bearing on the substantive issues presented in a FOIA action (adequacy of search, basis for withholdings under applicable exemptions). Plaintiff s Request for Admissions and Interrogatories instead seek to develop a record in connection with Plaintiff s distinct grievance under the Rehabilitation Act, which Plaintiff acknowledges is a claim that has not been raised in this lawsuit (e.g., ECF No. 26-2, RFA Nos ), seek admissions regarding certain conclusions of law, including with respect to his grievance under the Rehabilitation Act (e.g., ECF No. 26-2, RFA Nos. 1-5, ), seek admissions as to the authenticity of various documents already in Plaintiff s possession (e.g., ECF No. 26-2, RFA Nos. 6-63), and otherwise seeks admission of alleged specific facts that have no bearing on the substantive issues presented in this action (e.g., ECF No. 26-2, RFA Nos ). The Requests for Admission and Interrogatories therefore are objectionable because they are overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, unduly burdensome, and otherwise fall outside the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, the purported single interrogatory, which contains three subparts seeking information pertaining to each of the 346 admission requests, exceeds the 25-interrogatory limit in Rule 33. Plaintiff s assertion that such an interrogatory should constitute a single interrogatory is contrary to the weight of authority. See, e.g., Saliga v. Chemtura Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *10-11 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2013) (characterizing as a widely adopted approach the treatment of an interrogatory seeking the basis for the denial of each 6

7 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 7 of 11 request for admission as multiple interrogatories correlating to the number of admission requests). The Request for Production of Documents (ECF No. 28-1) also has no bearing on any substantive issue in this case. As stated in Plaintiff s motion to compel, Plaintiff s stated purpose in serving these document requests is to procure evidence as to whether Amanda Deplitch s sworn declaration [filed in support of Defendant s opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction] is perjurious or contains other false statements. (ECF No. 28, at 2). The stated purpose of this discovery, therefore, is unrelated to claims under FOIA that are at issue in this action. The Court, moreover, already has denied Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction (to which the Deplitch declaration related) and also denied Plaintiff s motion for sanctions based on statements made in the Deplitch declaration. (ECF No. 34, Mem. Op. at 9). Defendant also observes that the premise of the Request for Production of Documents that false statements were made in the Deplitch declaration is not supported by the record. Defendant addresses each of the alleged false statements in turn. As the following discussion establishes, the statements in the Deplitch declaration (which were based on information contained in TSA s FOIA system) were not false. Plaintiff first takes issue with the statement in the Deplitch declaration regarding Request 2013-TSPA (originally labeled as RequestTSA and 2013-TSFO-01179), in which Ms. Deplitch stated that: On March 25, 2013, TSA sent a letter to Sai informing him that his request was determined to be too broad in scope... [and] requested that Sai resubmit his request with a reasonable description of the records he was seeking. TSA never received a response from Sai. (ECF No. 27-1, Deplitch Decl. 8.) Plaintiff attaches an to his motion to compel that he contends was a response to the March 25, 2013 letter (ECF No. 28-2) and, 7

8 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 8 of 11 based on that , contends that the statement that TSA never received a response is false. However, the relevant point is that TSA never received a response from Sai in the manner TSA had requested, that is, a resubmitted request with a reasonable description of the records he was seeking. Plaintiff does not contend that he resubmitted his request as was requested in the March 25, 2013 letter. Instead, to the extent the attached to the motion to compel refers to Request No TSPA-00339, the is not responsive to the request made in the March 25, 2013 letter. (ECF No. 28-2, at Page 2 of 3). Accordingly, the does not establish that the statement in the Deplitch declaration was false. While Plaintiff may have provided a response in an , he did not respond in the manner requested by TSA. The second statement that Plaintiff claims to be false pertains to Request 2013-TSFO (originally labeled as Request TSA ), in which Ms. Deplitch stated that: On March 25, 2013, the TSA FOIA office sent a letter to Sai... informing him that, after careful review, the request was determined to be too broad in scope... [and] request[ed] that Sai resubmit his request containing a reasonable description of the records he is seeking.... The TSA FOIA office never received a perfected request from Sai providing more specificity as to what he was seeking in his request. (ECF No. 27-1, Deplitch Decl ) Plaintiff contends that the same (ECF No. 28-2) was a response to this aspect of the March 25, 2013 letter and, based on that , contends that the statement that TSA never received a perfected request is false. However, to the extent the attached to the motion to compel refers to Request 2013-TSFO-00239, it does not constitute a perfected request as requested in the March 25, 2013 letter. (ECF No. 28-2, at Page 2 of 3). Accordingly, the does not establish that the statement in the Deplitch declaration was false. 8

9 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 9 of 11 The third statement that Plaintiff claims to be false is Ms. Deplitch s statement that [t]he TSA FOIA office does not have a record in its FOIA system of any requests from Plaintiff in November (ECF No. 27-1, Deplitch Decl. 5.) Plaintiff attaches an dated November 23, 2013 (ECF No at Page 11 of 14) that he contends renders this statement false. As the chain attached to the motion to compel reflects, however, the November 23, was not treated as a new FOIA request by TSA and thus does not contradict the referenced statement in the Deplitch declaration. 3 The portion of that directed to the FOIA office seeks the same information sought by Plaintiff in two of his prior requests. Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Complaint that the November clearly incorporated and reiterated the contents of Sai s previous requests (Compl. 115) and TSA responded to the November , not by assigning it a new request number, but by stating that it was looking into the status of Plaintiff s open requests. (ECF No at Page 12 of 14.) Thus, TSA did not treat that aspect of the November as a new FOIA request and it was not entered in TSA s FOIA system as a new request. Moreover, the remainder of the November 23, is not a FOIA request and is expressly not directed to the FOIA office. To the contrary, the remaining portion of the is expressly directed to a different office within TSA (the office that handles civil rights complaints) and is seeking from that office an administrative response to Plaintiff s grievance filed under the Rehabilitation Act. (ECF No. 28-3, at Page 11 of 14). Accordingly, Ms. 3 Defendant recognizes that the Court, in its decision denying the motion for preliminary injunction, referred to this statement as false (albeit not knowingly false) based on the November 23, (ECF No. 34, Mem. Op. at 9 n.7). Defendant respectfully submits that, as the above discussion reflects, the November was not treated as a new FOIA request and thus the statement in the Deplitch declaration (and any related statements in the opposition to Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction) was not false. 9

10 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 10 of 11 Deplitch s statement that [t]he TSA FOIA office does not have a record in its FOIA system of any requests from Plaintiff in November 2013 is not false. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Ms. Deplitch s statements that Plaintiff Sai did not provide the TSA FOIA office with any information that would notify the FOIA office of the existence of [Rehabilitation Act grievance] claims and that TSA has only now received notice that Sai apparently intends to request records relating to his Rehabilitation Act claims are false. (ECF No. 27-1, Deplitch Decl. 13). However, as Plaintiff s own exhibits to his motion to compel demonstrate, the portion of the November 23, that pertained to Plaintiff s Rehabilitation Act grievance was not directed to the FOIA office. (ECF No. 28-3, at Page 11 of 14). The portion of the November that was directed to the FOIA office, moreover, did not seek documents pertaining to that grievance but instead was duplicative (as Plaintiff has acknowledged) of prior requests. (Id.; see also Compl. 115). Thus, as stated by Ms. Deplitch in her declaration, it was not until Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary injunction that TSA was on notice that Plaintiff interpreted his requests as seeking records under FOIA relating to his Rehabilitation Act grievance. In conclusion, for all of the reasons stated above, the Court should grant Defendant s motion for protective order and deny Plaintiff s motions to compel. II. Plaintiff s Motion for Sanctions Should Be Denied. Plaintiff moves for sanction based on the contention that Defendant failed to confer prior to the filing of Defendant s motion for protective order. (ECF No , at 11-12) There is no basis, however, for that assertion. As the communications attached to Plaintiff s filing establish, the parties conferred by telephone and regarding their dispute over whether discovery is appropriate in a FOIA action. The parties also jointly contacted chambers on June 10

11 Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 11 of 11 10, 2014 about their dispute, and the Court thereafter directed Defendant to proceed with a motion to the extent Defendant wanted to present the issue for the Court s consideration. Defendant, moreover, has a good faith basis to contend that any discovery is inappropriate in a FOIA action, and also to object specifically to the discovery that has been propounded by Plaintiff to date. In addition, as a result of Defendant s threshold objection to any discovery in this action, Defendant was not obligated to confer with Plaintiff over whether the requested discovery could be narrowed. Accordingly, Plaintiff s motion for sanctions should be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s motion for protective order should be granted, Plaintiff s motions to compel should be denied, and Plaintiff s motion for sanctions should be denied. Respectfully submitted, RONALD C. MACHEN, JR., D.C. BAR # United States Attorney for the District of Columbia DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. BAR # Civil Chief By: /s/ JEREMY SIMON, D.C. BAR # Assistant United States Attorney Civil Division th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C (202) Jeremy.Simon@usdoj.gov 11

Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 51 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 51 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:14-cv-00403-ESH Document 51 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SAI, vs. PLAINTIFF, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT. Case No.

More information

Case 1:18-cv KBJ Document 17 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv KBJ Document 17 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-00114-KBJ Document 17 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS ) IN WASHINGTON, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:14-cv-01311-APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, v. Plaintiff, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

More information

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-01295-TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-CV-01295 v. UNITED STATES

More information

Case 1:16-cv RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:16-cv RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 Case 1:16-cv-02410-RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DYLAN TOKAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-2410 (RC) ) UNITED STATES

More information

Case 1:17-cv KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 1:17-cv KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Case 1:17-cv-02542-KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK... x KATE DOYLE, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS

More information

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-01701-RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, v. Plaintiff, Case 1:17-cv-01701-RC FEDERAL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Plaintiffs, Defendants. Nance v. May Trucking Company et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 SCOTT NANCE and FREDERICK FREEDMAN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and

More information

[CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff TO:

[CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff TO: TO: [CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NO.: Defendant, [DEFENDANT S NAME] Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF S NAME]

More information

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILIP J. BERG, : : Plaintiff : : v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS

More information

Case 1:13-cv TSC Document 41-2 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B

Case 1:13-cv TSC Document 41-2 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B Case 1:13-cv-01215-TSC Document 41-2 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B Case 1:13-cv-01215-TSC Document 41-2 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILIP J. BERG, Plaintiff v. Civ. Action No. 208-cv-04083-RBS BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants ORDER

More information

Case 1:14-cv TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:14-cv-00857-TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL

More information

Case 1:13-cv KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:13-cv-00298-KBJ Document 21 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KENNETH L. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-cv-00298 (KBJ HONS. ANTONIN G. SCALIA

More information

Case 1:14-cv GK Document 31 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:14-cv GK Document 31 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:14-cv-00765-GK Document 31 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, v. Plaintiff, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Case No.

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Case No. Case 1:18-cv-01597 Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION, 1333 H Street, NW, 11 th Floor Washington, DC 20005,

More information

Case 3:03-cv CFD Document 74 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. v. No. 3:03CV277(CFD)(TPS)

Case 3:03-cv CFD Document 74 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. v. No. 3:03CV277(CFD)(TPS) Case 3:03-cv-00277-CFD Document 74 Filed 08/10/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RONALD P. MORIN, SR., et. al., -Plaintiffs, v. No. 3:03CV277(CFD)(TPS) NATIONWIDE FEDERAL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv600-HSO-LRA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv600-HSO-LRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL B. O'KEEFE, CELESTE A. FOSTER O'KEEFE, and THE DANCEL GROUP, INC. VS. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and MARSHALL

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-00287 Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VETERAN ESQUIRE LEGAL ) SOLUTIONS, PLLC, ) 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive ) Suite 400

More information

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9 Case 1:14-cv-20945-KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9 AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

More information

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 27 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 27 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:14-cv-01806-APM Document 27 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Competitive Enterprise Institute, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 14-cv-01806 (APM Office

More information

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to

More information

Case 1:09-cv FM Document 26 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 17 I. Background The relevant facts are undisputed. (See ECF No. 22 ( Times Reply Mem. ) at

Case 1:09-cv FM Document 26 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 17 I. Background The relevant facts are undisputed. (See ECF No. 22 ( Times Reply Mem. ) at Case 1:09-cv-10437-FM Document 26 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA McMillan et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al Doc. 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAVID MCMILLAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN, KATELYNN ELIZABETH, BRIANNA

More information

Case 1:15-cv PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiffs, 15 Civ (PKC) DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN

Case 1:15-cv PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiffs, 15 Civ (PKC) DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN Case 1:15-cv-09002-PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, v.

More information

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 180 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 180 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3 Case :-cv-0-hsg Document 0 Filed // Page of 0 JUSTIN M. SANDBERG, IL. BAR NO. 00 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 000 Telephone: (0 - Facsimile: (0-0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

More information

Case3:12-cv VC Document88 Filed06/09/15 Page1 of 2

Case3:12-cv VC Document88 Filed06/09/15 Page1 of 2 Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of Christopher D. Banys cdb@banyspc.com Banys, PC Elwell Court, Suite 0 Palo Alto, CA 0 Tel: 0-0-0 Fax: 0--0 June, 0 VIA ELECTRONIC CASE FILES (ECF) Magistrate Judge

More information

THE HONORABLE MEL DICKSTEIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PRACTICE POINTERS & PREFERENCES

THE HONORABLE MEL DICKSTEIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PRACTICE POINTERS & PREFERENCES I. Contact with Chambers THE HONORABLE MEL DICKSTEIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PRACTICE POINTERS & PREFERENCES Counsel may contact Judge Dickstein s law clerks with questions related to procedural matters

More information

SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES Amended and Effective October, 1, 2013 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES: 1. Mediation R-9. Mediation: Mediation is increasingly relied upon and is an accepted part of

More information

Defendants hereby move for a stay of all case deadlines in the abovecaptioned. 1. At the end of the day on December 21, 2018, the appropriations act

Defendants hereby move for a stay of all case deadlines in the abovecaptioned. 1. At the end of the day on December 21, 2018, the appropriations act Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 339 Filed 12/26/18 PageID.5168 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.G.U, et al. Plaintiffs, No. 1:18-cv-01458 (PLF v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,

More information

Case 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769

Case 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 Case 3:12-cv-00853-L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ MEMORANDUM AND

More information

Case 1:10-cv FJS Document 24 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:10-cv FJS Document 24 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:10-cv-01962-FJS Document 24 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EARLE A. PARTINGTON Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 10-1962-FJS v. VICE ADMIRAL JAMES W. HOUCK,

More information

Case 1:06-cv CKK Document 31 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:06-cv CKK Document 31 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:06-cv-01708-CKK Document 31 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. No. 06-1708 (CKK DEPARTMENT

More information

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 357 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 357 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Robert B. Hawk (Bar No. 0) Stacy R. Hovan (Bar No. ) 0 Campbell Avenue, Suite 00 Menlo Park, CA 0 Telephone: (0) -000 Facsimile: (0) - robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) Case 1:18-cv-01621 Document 1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FIX THE COURT, 1440 G St. NW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20005 Plaintiff, v. Case

More information

ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE. THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of

ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE. THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of certain civil matters before this Court, finds as follows: A. Discovery motions

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91234467 Party Correspondence Address Submission Filer's Name Filer's email Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA843411

More information

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-01243 Document 1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011

More information

NO CV. IN RE STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

NO CV. IN RE STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Opinion issued May 18, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00235-CV IN RE STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946 Case 4:17-cv-02946 Document 3 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas

More information

Case 2:17-cv MJP Document 217 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Defendants.

Case 2:17-cv MJP Document 217 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Defendants. Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. :-cv--mjp DEFENDANTS

More information

Case 3:07-cv SI Document 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:07-cv SI Document 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7 Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed //0 Page of 0 JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General CARL J. NICHOLS Deputy Assistant Attorney General SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States Attorney ELIZABETH J.

More information

Case 1:11-cv JDB Document 3 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv JDB Document 3 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-cv-02261-JDB Document 3 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02261-JDB

More information

231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.

More information

WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS

WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Scope. 2. Applicability. 3. Pleadings. 3.1. Commencement of action [Effective until June 1 2018.] 3.1. Commencement of action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 97 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-cv-1597 (CKK) DONALD J. TRUMP,

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:18-cv-01841 Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 120 Broadway

More information

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00907-KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7 FILED 2019 Feb-12 PM 05:09 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN

More information

Case 3:05-cv B-BLM Document 783 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:05-cv B-BLM Document 783 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 1 of 9 Case :0-cv-0-B-BLM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 ROBERT S. BREWER, JR. (SBN ) JAMES S. MCNEILL (SBN 0) 0 B Street, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted

More information

Case 1:16-cv KBJ Document 20 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv KBJ Document 20 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-00951-KBJ Document 20 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID YANOFSKY, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Defendant. Civil Action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 MIKE BAKER, Plaintiff, v. S. CACOA, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:1-cv-00-AWI-BAM (PC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO STAY SUMMARY

More information

Case 1:13-cv EGS Document 80 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv EGS Document 80 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 80 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 13-cv-1363 (EGS U.S.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD J. DAVILA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD J. DAVILA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD J. DAVILA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES I. APPLICATION OF STANDING ORDER Unless otherwise indicated by the Court,

More information

U.S. District Court. District of Columbia

U.S. District Court. District of Columbia This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, in Part, and Denied, in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00248-CV IN RE PRODIGY SERVICES,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH PLAINTIFFS V. NO. 1:06cv1080-LTS-RHW STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, FORENSIC

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE OAK RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL PEACE ) ALLIANCE, NUCLEAR WATCH OF NEW ) MEXICO, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE ) COUNCIL, RALPH HUTCHISON, ED SULLIVAN, )

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C.

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C. Case 1:18-cv-00944 Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 8 2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). 3. This Court has authority to award injunctive relief

More information

Case 1:16-cv-Of''l67-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/2?' 1 6 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv-Of''l67-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/2?' 1 6 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:16-cv-Of''l67-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/2?' 1 6 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024,

More information

Case 1:16-cv SEB-MJD Document 58 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 529

Case 1:16-cv SEB-MJD Document 58 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 529 Case 1:16-cv-00877-SEB-MJD Document 58 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 529 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION BROCK CRABTREE, RICK MYERS, ANDREW TOWN,

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-01688 Document 1 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The Center for Reproductive Rights 199 Water Street, New York, N.Y. 10038; National

More information

Case 1:17-cv APM Document 12-1 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:17-cv APM Document 12-1 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:17-cv-00599-APM Document 12-1 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:17-cv-00599-APM Document 12-1 Filed 06/08/17 Page 2 of 19 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

Case 1:17-cv RCL Document 11-7 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12

Case 1:17-cv RCL Document 11-7 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 Case 1:17-cv-01855-RCL Document 11-7 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Civil Action No.: 17-1855 RCL Exhibit G DEFENDANT

More information

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding

More information

Case 3:10-cv RRB Document 80 Filed 12/27/10 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:10-cv RRB Document 80 Filed 12/27/10 Page 1 of 6 Case 3:-cv-00-RRB Document 0 Filed 1// Page 1 of 3 4 Thomas V. Van Flein John Tiemessen Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness LLC 11 H S1., Suite 0 Anchorage, Alaska 01-344 Phone: (0 - Facsimile:

More information

R in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers

R in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers R-17-0010 in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers R-17-0010 was a rule petition filed by the Supreme Court s Committee on Civil Justice Reform in January 2017. The Supreme Court s Order in R-17-0010,

More information

Case 1:13-cv ER-KNF Document Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 17

Case 1:13-cv ER-KNF Document Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 17 Case 1:13-cv-05032-ER-KNF Document 298-3 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VICTOR RESTIS, eta/., v. Plaintiffs, ECF CASE No. 13 Civ. 5032 (ER) (KNF)

More information

Case 1:16-cv ABJ Document 10 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv ABJ Document 10 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:16-cv-01402-ABJ Document 10 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY ) INFORMATION CENTER, ) ) Case No. 1:16-cv-01402 Plaintiff, )

More information

RESOLUTION DIGEST

RESOLUTION DIGEST RESOLUTION 04-02-04 DIGEST Requests for Admissions: Service of Supplemental Requests Amends Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 to allow parties to propound a supplemental request for admission. RESOLUTIONS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Kansas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Kansas Case 2:16-cr-20032-JAR Document 192 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Kansas UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 16-20032-JAR LORENZO BLACK, et al., Defendants.

More information

Case 3:07-cv SI Document Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:07-cv SI Document Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7 Case 3:07-cv-05278-SI Document 25 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7 1 JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 CARL J. NICHOLS Deputy Assistant Attorney General 3 SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States

More information

Case 9:01-cv MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935

Case 9:01-cv MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935 Case 9:01-cv-00299-MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS v. NO. 9:01-CV-299

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009 MIN GONG v. IDA L. POYNTER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. MCCCCVOD081186 Ross H. Hicks, Judge

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Herb v. Loughlin, 2012-Ohio-4351.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STEVEN M. HERB JUDGES Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. Sheila G. Farmer,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lacy v. American Biltrite, INC. Employees Long Term Disability Plan et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MATTHEW LACY, v. Plaintiff, AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC., EMPLOYEES

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) THE WESTERN SHOSHONE ) IDENTIFIABLE GROUP, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 06-cv-00896L ) Judge Edward J. Damich THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION MALIK JARNO, Plaintiff, v. ) ) Case No. 1:04cv929 (GBL) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant. ORDER THIS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 12-1441-ABJ DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. DEFENDANT S CONSOLIDATED STATUS REPORT

More information

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

Dated: Dated: DEFINITIONS

Dated: Dated: DEFINITIONS INITIAL INTERROGATORIES WITH PROOF OF SERVICE TO: PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: The Propounding Party requests that the Responding Party respond to the following interrogatories in accordance with

More information

Case 6:08-cv RAS Document 104 Filed 12/02/2008 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 6:08-cv RAS Document 104 Filed 12/02/2008 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Case 6:08-cv-00089-RAS Document 104 Filed 12/02/2008 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ERIC M. ALBRITTON v. C. A. NO. 6:08-CV-00089 CISCO SYSTEMS,

More information

9:30 a.m. MOTION CALL, CASE MANAGEMENT, STATUS DATES 10:00 a.m. 2:30 p.m. MATTERS SET BY THE COURT

9:30 a.m. MOTION CALL, CASE MANAGEMENT, STATUS DATES 10:00 a.m. 2:30 p.m. MATTERS SET BY THE COURT HONORABLE FRANKLIN U. VALDERRAMA STANDING ORDER CALENDAR 3 Room 2402, Richard J. Daley Center Telephone: 312-603-5432 No Fax or Email Law Clerks: Alexandra M. Franco Samantha Grund-Wickramasekera Court

More information

GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the

GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION It appearing that there are certain actions pending in this Court in which plaintiffs claim damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ASUS COMPUTER INT L, v. Plaintiff, MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Defendant. SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL;

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/ :16 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/ :16 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK 17' 221 W. 17 STREET, LLC, vs. Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT ALLIED WORLD SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE Index No.: 655144/17 COMPANY, Defendant. David B.

More information

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Sherwood et al v. Tennessee Valley Authority (TV1) Doc. 181 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE DONNA W. SHERWOOD, et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:12-CV-156 ) (VARLAN/GUYTON)

More information

Case 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION Case 4:16-cv-00650-RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION DEBORAH INNIS, on behalf of the Telligen, Inc. Employee

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN Case 1:12-cv-01118-JMS-DML Document 35 37 Filed 11/30/12 12/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 263 308 MARIE FRITZINGER, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

More information

'" Tj. ~lual EMPLOYMENT OPPOl",1MlSSlON San Francisco District 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415 625-5602 TTY (415 625-5610 FAX (415 625-5609 1-800-669-4000 Nadine Johnson, Complainant,

More information

Case 1:15-cv TSC Document 14 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:15-cv TSC Document 14 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:15-cv-01955-TSC Document 14 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 15-cv-01955

More information

REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014

REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014 REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014 JUDICATE WEST COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES RULE 1. INTENT AND OVERVIEW 1 RULE 1.A. INTENT 1 RULE 1.B. COMMITMENT TO EFFICIENT RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES 1 RULE 2. JURISDICTION 1 RULE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC Silvers v. Google, Inc. Doc. 300 STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v. Plaintiff, GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

Case 3:12-cv DPJ-FKB Document 10 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:12-cv DPJ-FKB Document 10 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 10 Case 3:12-cv-00436-DPJ-FKB Document 10 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION JACKSON WOMEN S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, on

More information

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 3:18-cv-01099-NJR-RJD Document 19 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #348 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TODD RAMSEY, FREDERICK BUTLER, MARTA NELSON, DIANE

More information

SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY

SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY Southern Glazer s Arbitration Policy July - 2016 SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY A. STATEMENT

More information

Case 1:15-cv CRC Document 32 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:15-cv CRC Document 32 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:15-cv-00907-CRC Document 32 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) REBECCA TUSHNET, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:15-cv-00907 (CRC) v. ) ) UNITED STATES

More information

Case 1:12-cv JAL Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2013 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:12-cv JAL Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2013 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:12-cv-20863-JAL Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2013 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 12-cv-20863 (LENARD/O'SULLIVAN) JONATHAN CORBETT, Pro

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-00433 Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., 1600 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009, Plaintiff, Civil Action

More information

Case 9:17-cv WPD Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 9:17-cv WPD Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 9:17-cv-80619-WPD Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 17-CV-80619-WPD FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

More information