FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2013
|
|
- Moses Ferguson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (as Trustee under various Pooling and Servicing Agreements and Indenture Trustee under various Indentures), et al. Index No /2011 Assigned to: Kapnick, J. Petitioners, for an order, pursuant to C.P.L.R. 7701, seeking judicial instructions and approval of a proposed settlement. STEERING COMMITTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM EMPHASYS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. REILLY POZNER LLP MILLER & WRUBEL P.C Sixteenth Street, Suite Lexington Avenue Denver, Colorado New York, New York (303) (212) Attorneys for AIG Entities Attorneys for the Triaxx Entities KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, Washington (206) Attorneys for Federal Home Loan Banks of Boston, Chicago, and Indianapolis
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND... 3 LEGAL STANDARD... 6 ARGUMENT... 6 I. ETI Is a Fact Witness, Not a Litigation Consultant, and Therefore Its Testimony and Documents Cannot Be Shielded by BNYM s Privilege Objections... 6 II. III. ETI s Testimony And Documents Are Neither Attorney-Client Privileged Nor Attorney Work Product Protected... 8 ETI s Work Was Not Performed in Anticipation of Litigation or for Trial A. BNYM hired ETI to B. Even if prepared in anticipation of litigation, the ETI Documents are discoverable because they are necessary for the Court to understand how the settlement will affect Certificateholders CONCLUSION i
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ g Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968)... 6 Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgmt., 949 N.Y.S.2d 666 (1st Dep t 2012)... 9 Beller v. William Penn Life Ins. Co., 15 Misc. 3d 350 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2007)... 8 Cent. Buffalo Project Corp. v. Rainbow Salads, Inc., 140 A.D.2d 943 (4th Dep t 1988)... 6, 8, 9, 10 Chemical Bank v. Nat l Union Fire Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 837 (1st Dep t 1979) City of Rochester v. E & L Piping, Inc., No. 1999/12094, 2001 WL (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. Aug. 29, 2001)... 7, 8 Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 14 Misc.3d 428 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2006)... 7 Finkelman v. Klaus, 856 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2007 WL (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. Nov. 28, 2007)... 6 Mold Maint. Serv. v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 56 A.D.2d 134 (4th Dep t 1977) People v. Edney, 39 N.Y.2d 620 (1976)... 9 Spectrum Sys. Int l Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 157 A.D.2d 444 (1st Dep t 1990)... 7, 8, 10 Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)... 8 Zimmerman v. Nassau Hosp., 76 A.D.2d 921 (2d Dep t 1980)... 6, 9 STATUTES CPLR 3101(a)... 6 ii
4 The Steering Committee of the Intervenor-Respondents and Objectors respectfully moves under CPLR 3124 to compel EmphaSys Technologies, Inc. ( ETI ), through its representative David Anthony, to (1) produce the documents requested in the Steering Committee s October 29, 2012 Subpoena to ETI, and (2) answer deposition questions regarding the work that ETI performed relating to the proposed settlement. 1 The Steering Committee also respectfully requests an order for the resumption of ETI s deposition. INTRODUCTION Before the commencement of this action, the Bank of New York Mellon ( BNYM or Trustee ) retained ETI, a third party, Despite the obvious importance of the scope of work performed by ETI including that ETI s work counsel claims that ETI s work product is privileged. Counsel for BNYM and ETI also blocked most, if not all, of the questioning by the Steering Committee during ETI s deposition. BNYM s and ETI s attempts to shield relevant discovery into the work performed by ETI is wholly unjustified, but consistent with BNYM s apparent efforts to prevent Intervenors and the Court from obtaining critical information about One example of BNYM s resistance to transparency on this topic is the 1 The Steering Committee submits this memorandum on behalf of all Intervenors except: the Delaware Department of Justice; the New York State Office of the Attorney General; the Federal Housing Finance Agency; the National Credit Union Administration Board; the Maine State Retirement System; Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers; Vermont Pension Investment Committee; the Washington State Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension Trust; the Knights of Columbus and the other clients represented by Talcott Franklin P.C.; Cranberry Park LLC; and Cranberry Park II LLC. 1
5 2 Faten Sabry on behalf of NERA testified that in 3 Ms. Sabry testified that NERA, is just one example of BNYM s many efforts to block information concerning. The Steering Committee reserves its right to challenge BNYM s decisions concerning. However, this order to show cause is narrowly focused and will address only the improper privilege objections made with respect to ETI and matters concerning ETI s testimony, documents, and reports will aid the Court and Intervenors in understanding key questions related to whether BNYM conducted an adequate factual investigation and whether the Court should approve the Settlement Agreement, which if 2 NERA is a consulting firm that BNYM hired to perform calculations necessary to determine what portion of the settlement payment would be allocated to each Covered Trust. 3 Ex. 10 at 132:23-133:6. Citations to Ex. reference the exhibits to the Affirmation of Michael A. Rollin In Support of OTSC Regarding EmphaSys Technologies, Inc., dated January 13, 2013, and filed simultaneously with this brief. 4 Ex. 10 at 71:23-74:22. 5 Id. at 68:8-70:12. 6 Id. at 132:23-133:21. 2
6 approved would extinguish the rights of all Certificateholders in the Covered Trusts. In addition, this information will shed much-needed light on None of counsel s privilege objections were proper as to ETI, who counsel admitted on the record is a fact witness. First, as made clear by deposition testimony, so ETI cannot be shielded by BNYM s privilege objections. Second, the attorneyclient privilege and attorney work-product doctrine are inapplicable because ETI s communications with BNYM are not communications between an attorney and a client and ETI s reports and related documents do not reflect counsel s research, legal theory or strategy. Third, ETI s documents and reports do not qualify as material prepared in anticipation of litigation because The Court should reject BNYM s attempt to shield relevant and discoverable information from Intervenors with inapplicable privilege objections and compel discovery of ETI s documents and testimony. 7 FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 29, 2012, the Steering Committee served EmphaSys Technologies, Inc. with a subpoena requesting the production of five categories of documents: (1) All documents or communications exchanged between ETI and BNYM, the Inside Institutional Investors, and/or Bank of America; (2) All facts, data, or other documents considered by ETI during the course of its engagement with BNYM; 7 The scope of Steering Committee s Motion and Memorandum here is limited to BNYM s counsel s meritless privilege objections. In the event the Court deems any of the information privileged, the Steering Committee respectfully reserves its right to seek further relief from the Court based upon other grounds, including, but not limited to, at-issue waiver and the fiduciary exception. 3
7 (3) All documents and/or files kept by ETI concerning its engagement with BNYM, including but not limited to, hand-written notes and draft documents; (4) All documents and/or files kept by ETI concerning communications between ETI and BNYM, the Inside Institutional Investors, and/or Bank of America, including but not limited to hand-written notes; and (5) All documents concerning ETI s time records, invoices, and evidence of payment received for any work done in connection with or concerning ETI s engagement with BNYM (all five categories collectively referred to as the ETI Documents ). Ex. 1. On November 8, 2012, the Steering Committee served ETI with a deposition subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2302(a). Ex. 2. In a letter dated November 13, 2012, counsel for BNYM provided written objections to the document subpoena. See Ex. 3. According to BNYM s counsel, the entire ETI engagement relating to the Settlement Agreement, including virtually all of ETI s communications with Mayer Brown or BNYM and all of ETI s work product, is covered by the attorney-client privilege. Id. at 3. However, BNYM s counsel stated it would allow ETI to testify about non-privileged matters. Id. One day before ETI s deposition, BNYM s counsel produced a total of four ETI Documents, including a heavily-redacted version of and objected to the production of additional documents based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. See Ex. 4. Then, on November 15, 2012, the Steering Committee deposed David Anthony, who appeared on behalf of ETI. Mayer Brown appeared as counsel on behalf of both BNYM and ETI. During the deposition, counsel objected to questioning as covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product protections. Ex. 5 at 35: BNYM s counsel 8 Counsel did not specify whether he was seeking protection from only the attorney work product doctrine, or both the attorney work product doctrine and the general work product doctrine. Out of 4
8 blocked the Steering Committee s questioning about ETI s factual analysis, including when the Steering Committee asked: (id. at 42:16-43:4); 75:14); 42:2-43:4); 45:21-46:8); (id. at 74:4- (id. at 41:23-42:7); (id. at (id. at (id. at 47:25-48:4); (id. at 49:4-17); (id. at 49:21-50:4); and (id. at 48:5-25). Because ETI appeared as a fact witness and the Steering Committee questioned ETI about the factual investigation it conducted on behalf of BNYM, as Trustee for the 530 Covered Trusts, counsel s objections to the Steering Committee s questioning were improper. 9 precaution, the Steering Committee addresses both work product doctrines in this brief. theory, the ETI Documents and related testimony are discoverable. Under either 9 Counsel for BNYM has blocked testimony regarding facts from other witnesses using the same groundless privilege objections. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 73:8-17; 78:7-22; 79:7-17; 134:21-135:23; 139:8-5
9 LEGAL STANDARD New York s discovery rules require full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, CPLR 3101(a), and are to be liberally construed. Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ g Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406 (1968). Although CPLR 3101 establishes three categories of protected materials: (1) attorney-client privileged matter, (2) attorney s work product, and (3) trial preparation materials, a party s [s]weeping assertions of privilege are unacceptable. Finkelman v. Klaus, 856 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2007 WL , at *3 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. Nov. 28, 2007). When a party claims that particular records or documents are exempt or immune from disclosure, the burden is on the party asserting such immunity. Cent. Buffalo Project Corp. v. Rainbow Salads, Inc., 140 A.D.2d 943, 944 (4th Dep t 1988) (internal citation omitted). This burden is so placed by virtue of the strong policy in favor of full disclosure[.] and the mere assertion that [a consultant s reports] constitute an attorney s work product or material prepared for litigation will not suffice. Zimmerman v. Nassau Hosp., 76 A.D.2d 921, (2d Dep t 1980) (citation omitted). ARGUMENT I. ETI Is a Fact Witness, Not a Litigation Consultant, and Therefore Its Testimony and Documents Cannot Be Shielded by BNYM s Privilege Objections BNYM s counsel objected to questions during the deposition of Mr. Anthony as if ETI was a litigation consultant. At the same time, and counsel repeatedly admitted that Mr. Anthony was testifying as a fact witness. Ex. 5 at 19:16, 35:8-10, 50: Under well-established law, any privilege afforded to litigation consultants cannot be used to narrow or restrict the testimony or disclosures by [a] 141:11. At this time, the Steering Committee is not moving to reopen all depositions; however, the Steering Committee reserves the right to request to reopen additional depositions depending upon the information obtained from newly-discovered documents and additional depositions. 6
10 fact witness. City of Rochester v. E & L Piping, Inc., No. 1999/12094, 2001 WL , at *2 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. Aug. 29, 2001). This holds true because [o]nly documents created or communicated by [the litigation consultant] to [counsel] within the litigation consultancy are protected and not subject to disclosure. Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 14 Misc.3d 428, 431 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2006). BNYM cannot create a privilege where none exists. See Spectrum Sys. Int l Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 157 A.D.2d 444, 449 (1st Dep t 1990). To determine whether a third-party consultant was retained as a litigation consultant, courts will consider the nature of the retention. See Delta, 14 Misc. 3d at 432 ( A review of the retention letter... indicates that [the consultant] was retained as a litigation consultant[.] ). For example, in Delta, the court found that only documents and communications prepared by a consultant during the time it served as a litigation consultant were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, whereas materials prepared by the consultant prior to its engagement as a litigation consultant were properly discoverable because the consultant was merely a fact witness. Id. at Here, the ETI Documents and testimony are not entitled to any protection because ETI. First, as BNYM s counsel conceded multiple times during the deposition, ETI was and is a fact witness. Ex. 5 at 19:16, 35:8-10, 50: Second, the evidence shows that Ex. 7; see also Ex. 5 at 40:12-17 services ETI provided to BNYM were Ex. 8. Finally, Mr. Anthony agreed that all of the 7
11 Ex. 5 at 37:17-20, and Id. at 39: ETI, as a fact witness, is not afforded the same protections as a litigation consultant. 10 See City of Rochester, 2001 WL , at *2-3. Therefore, the ETI Documents and testimony regarding the work ETI performed for BNYM are properly discoverable. II. ETI s Testimony And Documents Are Neither Attorney-Client Privileged Nor Attorney Work Product Protected The undisputed fact that Mr. Anthony is a fact witness and not an expert witness ends the inquiry. The information he and others at ETI conveyed to BNYM and the information BNYM conveyed to ETI cannot enjoy privilege protections because ETI is a third party. However, even if BNYM changes course and now attempts to argue that ETI was hired as an expert, it still does not give rise to a blanket privilege claim over all ETI work product and information. The attorney-client privilege extends only to communications and not facts. Spectrum Sys., 157 A.D.2d at 449 (citing Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, (1981)). It has long been settled that information received by the attorney from other persons and sources while acting on behalf of a client does not come within the attorney-client privilege. Id. at 449. Similarly, only interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, and personal beliefs that were held, prepared, or conducted by the attorney are protected from disclosure as attorney work product. Cent. Buffalo, 140 A.D.2d at 944 (internal quotations omitted; emphasis added). With reference to an attorney s dealings with an expert, it is only the information and 10 Even if the Court determines that BNYM s counsel hired ETI as a litigation consultant (which it did not), counsel waived the protections generally afforded to litigation consultants by allowing ETI to testify rather than moving to quash the deposition and seeking a protective order from this Court. See Beller v. William Penn Life Ins. Co., 15 Misc. 3d 350, 353 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2007) (rejecting an argument that expert retained as both a litigation consultant and a testifying expert is entitled to protections afforded to litigation consultants). 8
12 observations disclosed by the attorney and conveyed to the expert which are subject to exclusion. Zimmerman, 76 A.D.2d at 922 (citing People v. Edney, 39 N.Y.2d 620, 625 (1976)); Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgmt., 949 N.Y.S.2d 666, 669 (1st Dep t 2012) (holding that the [t]he only portion of the analyst s reports that could be attorney work product would be impressions, directions, etc., of counsel ). Notably, consultant reports prepared by a third party and thereafter conveyed to the attorney... do[] not come within the exclusion. Cent. Buffalo, 140 A.D.2d at 944 (finding that CPA s report regarding financial records prepared for settlement negotiations was not attorney work product protected because it was prepared by a third-party for the attorney). Likewise, here, the ETI Documents and related testimony are neither attorney-client privileged communications nor attorney work product. As discussed in Part I, supra, During ETI s deposition, the Steering Committee sought to elicit testimony from ETI as a fact witness by asking questions regarding Ex. 5 at 42:8-15 (emphasis added); see also Procedural Background, supra (listing factual questions BNYM s counsel improperly objected to on privilege grounds). Counsel s objections were clearly improper as counsel used them to block the underlying facts, which are not subject to the attorney-client privilege. ETI s only Furthermore, Ex. 5 at 73:17-18, (agreeing that The ETI Documents could not (and did not) contain legal advice or attorney work product, as the documents were not prepared by an attorney, do not reflect counsel s legal research and analysis, 9
13 and were not made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services in the course of a professional relationship. Spectrum Sys., 157 A.D.2d at 447. That the results of ETI s factual investigation may have been shared with BNYM s counsel does not make ETI s factual analysis privileged. Id. at The Court should order production of the ETI Documents and compel testimony regarding the work ETI performed for BNYM. III. ETI s Work Was Not Performed in Anticipation of Litigation or for Trial A. BNYM hired ETI Work prepared in anticipation of litigation is distinguishable from work prepared While the former is entitled to limited work product protection, the latter merely aids a client in making a business decision and is thus not entitled to any work product protection. See, e.g., Mold Maint. Serv. v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 56 A.D.2d 134, 135 (4th Dep t 1977) (finding consulting expert s report not protected because it was prepared in the normal course of business ); Chemical Bank v. Nat l Union Fire Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 837 (1st Dep t 1979) (finding that a financial report prepared for possible use in litigation, and for other purposes as well, including to help assess defendant s liability, was not privileged, and ordering production of the report pursuant to CPLR 3124). Indeed, the Appellate Division has expressly held that a report prepared in connection with advising the client whether to approve or ratify [a] settlement proposal, is not a report prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore is not exempt from discovery. Cent. Buffalo, 140 A.D.2d at 944. BNYM s primary, if not only, motivation in hiring ETI was to BNYM has made no showing that the ETI Documents were prepared in 10
14 anticipation of litigation or for trial. Ex. 8; see also Ex. 5 at 37:12-16 investigation to make a business determination concerning BNYM conducted an The ETI Documents and related testimony are properly discoverable. B. Even if prepared in anticipation of litigation, the ETI Documents are discoverable because they are necessary for the Court to understand how the settlement will affect Certificateholders Should the Court find that ETI s Documents fall within trial preparation materials as defined in CPLR 3101(d), these materials nonetheless are discoverable because (1) Intervenors have substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case, and (2) they are unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. CPLR 3101(d)(2). and, to date, BNYM has not disclosed how the settlement proceeds will be distributed to Certificateholders in the Covered Trusts. In addition, Intervenors hiring of a consultant to perform similar analysis would be insufficient because that analysis would not show what BNYM, as Trustee, relied upon in deciding whether to enter the Settlement Agreement. Without knowing the information BNYM considered when it evaluated the settlement, the Court cannot determine whether the Trustee conducted an adequate factual investigation, whether the Trustee appropriately evaluated the benefits and consequences of the settlement, whether the Trustee acted within the bounds of reasonableness, whether the settlement should be approved in all respects, and how the 11
15 settlement will affect all Certificateholders in the 530 Covered Trusts. CONCLUSION For the above reasons and pursuant to CPLR 3101(a), the Steering Committee respectfully request that this Court issue an order requiring (1) production of the ETI Documents; (2) responses to deposition questions regarding the work ETI performed for BNYM; and (3) the resumption of ETI s deposition. 12
16 DATED: January 14, 2013 REILLY POZNER LLP By: s/ Michael A. Rollin Daniel Reilly Michael Rollin 1900 Sixteenth St., Ste Denver, Colorado Telephone: (303) Fax: (303) Attorneys for AIG Entities MILLER & WRUBEL P.C. By: s/ John G. Moon John G. Moon Claire L. Huene 570 Lexington Avenue New York, New York Telephone: (212) Fax: (212) Attorneys for the Triaxx Entities KELLER ROHRBACK LLP By: s/ Derek W. Loeser Derek W. Loeser David J. Ko 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, Washington Telephone: (206) Fax: (206) Gary A. Gotto 3101 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona Telephone: (602) Fax: (602) Attorneys for Federal Home Loan Banks of Boston, Chicago, and Indianapolis 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 856 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2013 INDEX NO. 651786/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 856 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2012 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 220 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2012
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2012 INDEX NO. 651786/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 220 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application
Sheehan v 30 Park Place Residential LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30026(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge:
Sheehan v 30 Park Place Residential LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30026(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 157153/2015 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
January 19, By Fax. The Honorable Paul A. Crotty Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007
Erik Haas Partner (212) 336-2117 Direct Fax (212) 336-2386 ehaas@pbwt.com By Fax The Honorable Paul A. Crotty Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 By Fax
Matter of Mallin 2017 NY Slip Op 31133(U) May 17, 2017 Surrogate's Court, Nassau County Docket Number: Judge: Margaret C.
Matter of Mallin 2017 NY Slip Op 31133(U) May 17, 2017 Surrogate's Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 2010-360597 Judge: Margaret C. Reilly Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
E-FILED 2014 JAN 02 736 PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P., v. Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2011 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2011
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2011 INDEX NO. 651786/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Knights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge:
Knights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651442/2011 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2011 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2011
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2011 INDEX NO. 651786/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/29/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/02/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK DEMOND MOORE and MICHAEL KIMMELMAN, P.C. v. Plaintiffs, CIOX HEALTH LLC and NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, Defendants. Index No. 655060/2016 ASSIGNED JUDGE
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/17/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 468 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2015
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2015 0855 PM INDEX NO. 652382/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 468 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/17/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------
Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059
Case: 1:13-cv-01418 Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISLEWOOD CORPORATION, v. AT&T CORPORATION, AT&T
Neiditch v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y NY Slip Op 32757(U) April 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /14 Judge:
Neiditch v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. 2015 NY Slip Op 32757(U) April 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 600332/14 Judge: Jeffrey S. Brown Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
Case: 4:11-cv JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710
Case: 4:11-cv-00523-JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT ) OF AMERICAN RIVER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:08-cv-01159-JTM -DWB Document 923 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-1159-JTM
Legnetti v Camp America 2011 NY Slip Op 33754(U) December 21, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 1113/09 Judge: Antonio I.
Legnetti v Camp America 2011 NY Slip Op 33754(U) December 21, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 1113/09 Judge: Antonio I. Brandveen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
The Common Interest Privilege in Bankruptcy: Recent Trends and Practical Guidance
The Common Interest Privilege in Bankruptcy: Recent Trends and Practical Guidance By Elliot Moskowitz* I. Introduction The common interest privilege (sometimes known as the community of interest privilege,
AMENDED RULE 26 EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
CONSTRUCTION H. JAMES WULFSBERG, ESQ. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Fristman Professional Corporation DAVID J. HYNDMAN, ESQ. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Fristman Professional Corporation navigant.com About Navigant
The 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Section Annual Conference April 18 20, 2012: Deposition Practice in Complex Cases: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly The to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the
CASE NO. 1D J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr., Jeffrey J. Humphries, Kathryn N. Slade of O'Hara Harlvorsen Humphries, PA, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MELINDA BUTLER, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-1342
Case 1:11-cv WHP Document 100 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-05988-WHP Document 100 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (as Trustee under
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF KINGS DJUMABAY SHOTOMIROV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), Index No. 522567/2016 Assigned Justice: Hon. Edgar G. Walker
Respondents. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK RECLAIM THE RECORDS and BROOKE SCHREIER GANZ, Petitioners, Index No 159537/2018 THE CITY OF NEW YORK and DEPARTMENT OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION
that the Honorable Court grant Defendants leave to file an Order to Show Cause seeking: (1) a Defendants' Court dated April 18, 2018 (the "April
WARSHAW BURSTElN, LLP 555 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 WARSHAW Telephone: 212-984-7700 www.wbny.com Pankaj Partner Malik 212-984-7742 pmalik@wbny.com April 24, 2018 Hon. Anthony L. Parga Supreme Court
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2016 0700 PM INDEX NO. 650587/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF 11/18/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Kenny v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC et al Doc. 0 1 1 ROBERT KENNY, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PIMCO INVESTMENTS LLC, Defendants.
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
Matter of Demetriou (Aliano) 2016 NY Slip Op 32031(U) June 29, 2016 Surrogate's Court, Nassau County Docket Number: C Judge: Margaret C.
Matter of Demetriou (Aliano) 2016 NY Slip Op 32031(U) June 29, 2016 Surrogate's Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 359448C Judge: Margaret C. Reilly Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2016 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 100049/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016 OD/Imm 07540-084087 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X DAVID
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2018
MOTION 5002 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------X DANIELLE DRAKE, Index No. 159618/2016 Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION -against- IN OPPOSITION
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :30 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS SUPPLYTEK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, D/B/A/ LASERTONE, AND LASERTONE, CORP.,.: Index No.: 508465/2017 Plaintiffs, : Assigned Justice: Hon. Lawrence Knipel
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
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/17/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2016
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2016 02:49 PM INDEX NO. 512723/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------X
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IAS PART 60 In the Matter of the Application of WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General
Reply Affirmation of Erica B. Garay, Esq. dated December 4, 2003.
SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS TERM PART 19 NASSAU COUNTY INDEX NO. 11990-03 PRESENT: HONORABLE LEONARD B. AUSTIN Justice Motion R/D: 11-28-03 Submission Date: 12-5-03 Motion Sequence No.: 002,003,004/
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND John Marshall Courts Building. v. Case. No.:
The following brief, authored by Tom Williamson, was filed to compel a defendant to produce its incident in a wrongful death action. To learn more about our practice areas please visit our website or click
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.
Information or instructions: Request for disclosure 1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure. 2. Either party may file a request upon the other in order to obtain basic
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 6:09-cv-06019-CJS-JWF Document 48 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JULIE ANGELONE, XEROX CORPORATION, Plaintiff(s), DECISION AND ORDER v. 09-CV-6019
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2013. Exhibit 2
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2013 INDEX NO. 650587/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF 09/10/2013 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No.
y IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE ex rel. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, V. Relator, Case No. (,< f L.rr. THE HONORABLE STEVEN E. MARTIN, Judge, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 340 Hamilton County
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/18/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/18/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ALLEN DAVIDSON, -against- Plaintiff, 307-311 UNION AVE LLC and SUN SUN CONTRACTING INC., Index No. 505042/2016 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT 307-311
Prompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege
Prompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege by Monica L. Goebel and John B. Nickerson Workplace Harassment In order to avoid liability for workplace harassment, an employer must show that it exercised
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2013 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2013 INDEX NO. 653787/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE TRUST SERIES
COUNTY OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE BANK OF NEW YORK Index No. 657387/2017
Case 1:13-cv MCA-LF Document 152 Filed 10/22/16 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:13-cv-00439-MCA-LF Document 152 Filed 10/22/16 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. 1:13-cv-00439-MCA-LF
Case 2:16-cv JAR-JPO Document 246 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:16-cv-02105-JAR-JPO Document 246 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS STEVEN WAYNE FISH, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
July 29, Via Certified Mail. Attn: Freedom of Information Law Request
July 29, 2016 Via Certified Mail Attn: Freedom of Information Law Request Jonathan David Records Access Appeals Officer New York City Police Department One Police Plaza, Room 1406 New York, NY 10038 FOIL
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL
JOHNSON v. BRIDGES OF INDIANA, INC. et al Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION BOBBIE J. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No. 913 WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MYRNA COHEN Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MOORE BECKER, P.C. AND JEFFREY D. ABRAMOWITZ v. Appellees No. 913 WDA 2012 Appeal
Case 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 20 but also DENIES Jones Day s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Applicants may
MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA FOR LOEB & TROPER WORK PAPERS. On May 16, 2005, Intervenor-Respondent [ the Respondents ]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER --------------------------------------------X MIRIAM OSBORN MEMORIAL HOME ASSOCIATION, FILED AND ENTERED ON DATE June 30, 2005 WESTCHESTER COUNTY
Cadles of Grassy Meadow II, L.L.C. v Lapidus 2011 NY Slip Op 34159(U) October 5, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /06 Judge:
Cadles of Grassy Meadow II, L.L.C. v Lapidus 2011 NY Slip Op 34159(U) October 5, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 106421/06 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IAS PART 60
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IAS PART 60 In the Matter of the Application of WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Case 3:16-cv HZ Document 24 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:16-cv-01721-HZ Document 24 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON KIERSTEN MACFARLANE, Plaintiff, No. 3:16-cv-01721-HZ OPINION & ORDER v. FIVESPICE
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/ :51 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2016 EXHIBIT I
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/2016 08:51 PM INDEX NO. 156005/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2016 EXHIBIT I By E-Mail and First Class Mail Jackson Lewis P.C. 58 South Service Road,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2017
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2017 0627 PM INDEX NO. 651715/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF 06/19/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IAS PART - - - - - - - - - -
Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937
Case: 1:10-cv-02348 Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LORI WIGOD; DAN FINLINSON; and SANDRA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT
Case: 1:09-cv-03039 Document #: 94 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:953 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT SARA LEE CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff,
DOC#: ~~~~ DATE FILED: /-1-flj
Case 1:11-cv-06259-PKC Document 76 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5 USDSSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x
LG Funding, LLC v Filton LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33289(U) December 14, 2018 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /17 Judge: Jack L.
LG Funding, LLC v Filton LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33289(U) December 14, 2018 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 606949/17 Judge: Jack L. Libert Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
The attorney-client privilege
BY TIMOTHY J. MILLER AND ANDREW P. SHELBY TIMOTHY J. MILLER is partner and general counsel at Novack and Macey LLP. As co-chair of the firm s legal malpractice defense group, he represents law firms and
Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 06/04/14 Page 1 of 18 EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 315-6 Filed in TXSD on 06/04/14 Page 1 of 18 EXHIBIT 5 Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW 2:13-cv-00193 Document 315-6 Document Filed in 154 TXSD Filed on 06/04/14 05/28/12 Page
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/15/2015 06:14 PM INDEX NO. 652396/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JOHN HARADA, Index No. 652396/2014
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ]
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ] (a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. (1) Initial Disclosures. Except to the extent
JBGR LLC v Chicago Tit. Ins. Co NY Slip Op 51006(U) Emerson, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.
[*1] JBGR LLC v Chicago Tit. Ins. Co. 2017 NY Slip Op 51006(U) Decided on August 2, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Emerson, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/22/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/22/2014 INDEX NO. 650099/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK KIMBERLY SLAYTON, Petitioner, Index
Vasomedical, Inc. v Barron NY Slip Op 51015(U) Decided on June 30, Supreme Court, Nassau County. Destefano, J.
[*1] Vasomedical, Inc. v Barron 2014 NY Slip Op 51015(U) Decided on June 30, 2014 Supreme Court, Nassau County Destefano, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2014
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2014 0525 PM INDEX NO. 652450/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF 08/26/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x
Kellman v Whyte 2013 NY Slip Op 32938(U) November 15, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted
Kellman v Whyte 2013 NY Slip Op 32938(U) November 15, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 653142/11 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/03/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/03/2016 0600 PM INDEX NO. 651784/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/03/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2017
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/2017 0105 PM INDEX NO. 653323/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/28/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed
womblebonddickinson.com Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed Presentation to the Charlotte Chapter of the ACC November 1, 2017 Attorney Work Product United Phosphorus, Ltd.
THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL S PARTIAL OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, Inc., : : : vs. : C.A. No. 2017-3856 : St. Josephs Health Services of Rhode Island : Retirement Plan, as
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:14-cv-01421-AGF Doc. #: 75 Filed: 06/23/15 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 574 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KIRBY PEMBERTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. B239849 (Los Angeles County Super.
Case KJC Doc 108 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11
Case 16-11247-KJC Doc 108 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: INTERVENTION ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC., et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 16-11247(KJC) Debtors.
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/20/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------------X X Index No.: 514015/2016 MARIA MORALES, Plaintiff, -against- AFFIRMATION IN
[PROPOSED] ORDER IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, et al., ) Petitioners, )
Received 12/10/2017 11:43:42 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Filed 12/10/2017 11:43:00 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 261 Mu 2017 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA League of Women
Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 1349 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 22 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-wha Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 0 rvannest@keker.com RACHAEL E. MENY - # rmeny@keker.com JENNIFER A. HUBER - # 0 jhuber@keker.com JO
Matter of Abramaitis 2011 NY Slip Op 33234(U) September 12, 2011 Sur Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: /A Judge: III., Edward W.
Matter of Abramaitis 2011 NY Slip Op 33234(U) September 12, 2011 Sur Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 2010-360166/A Judge: III., Edward W. McCarty Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel vs.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECTION NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EEO LAW March 30, 2017 New Orleans, LA
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECTION NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EEO LAW March 30, 2017 New Orleans, LA Defending a Union Representative Subpoenaed to Testify in Litigation Involving a Bargaining
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 05/06/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2016
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 05/06/2016 05:22 PM INDEX NO. 700847/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ----------------------------------------x
LaRoche vs. Champlain Oil Company Inc. et al ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT Bennington Unit CIVIL DIVISION Docket No. 363-10-15 Bncv LaRoche vs. Champlain Oil Company Inc. et al ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Count 1, Personal Injury - Slip & Fall (363-10-15
Reprinted with permission from Westlaw. Page 1. Slip Copy, 2009 WL (D.Kan.) (Cite as: 2009 WL (D.Kan.))
Page 1 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, D. Kansas. COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES REFINING & MARKETING, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPO- RATION,
Case 1:08-cv LAK Document 89 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-02764-LAK Document 89 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CSX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE CHILDREN S INVESTMENT FUND MANAGEMENT (UK)
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/30/ :42 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/30/2015
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/30/2015 0542 PM INDEX NO. 452951/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/30/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hinda Klein, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer P.A., Hollywood, for Respondents.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PAMELA NEVIN, v. Petitioner, PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND F.A. RICHARD & ASSOCIATES, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/15/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/15/2016
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 11/15/2016 03:34 PM INDEX NO. 713208/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS Our File Number: 42012961 In the
NOTICE OF A JUDICIAL INSTRUCTION PROCEEDING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH JPMORGAN
NOTICE OF A JUDICIAL INSTRUCTION PROCEEDING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH JPMORGAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES, NOTES OR
Simpson v Alter 2011 NY Slip Op 31765(U) June 21, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 11095/09 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from
Simpson v Alter 2011 NY Slip Op 31765(U) June 21, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 11095/09 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
Case 2:08-cv SHM-dkv Document 327 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 8969
Case 2:08-cv-02192-SHM-dkv Document 327 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 8969 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION In re REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN SECURITIES,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
Mobile Billboards of America, inc., California Mobile Billboards, et...., Janofsky and Walker, LLP. Doc. 2 Case 5:07-mc-00037 Document 2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: June 8, 2017 524010 MICHAEL C. SCHMITT et al., Respondents, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ONEONTA CITY SCHOOL
Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc. L.P NY Slip Op 33712(U) April 11, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Judith J.
Borden v 400 E. 55th St. Assoc. L.P. 2012 NY Slip Op 33712(U) April 11, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650361/09 Judge: Judith J. Gische Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2016 12:27 PM INDEX NO. 651454/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CRICKET STOCKHOLDER REP,