IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
|
|
- Shavonne Cummings
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:03-CV (RBW v. ALBERTO GONZALES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants. REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION BY NON-PARTY THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY TO QUASH SUBPOENA In opposing the motion by non-party The New York Times Company ( the Times to quash his subpoena, Plaintiff never even attempts to answer the central questions presented by the Times motion: why the Times and why now? Instead, Plaintiff s only direct reference to the Times argues (incorrectly that there is no potential conflict between the discovery he belatedly seeks in this case and pre-existing discovery disputes in his on-going libel suit with the Times. Otherwise, Plaintiff s omnibus Opposition to motions filed by a number of news organizations argues that the Court has in effect authorized him to subpoena any press entity that ever reported on the criminal investigation of him. See Pl. s Consolidated Opp n to Media Companies Mots. to Quash ( Opp. [Dkt. 165] at 3. Indeed, Plaintiff goes to great lengths to distract the Court from focusing on the particulars of the Times reporting that is the subject of his discovery demands by attacking monolithically all of the media companies that are the targets of his latest subpoenas. Id. at 1. Plaintiff s attempt to obscure the issues raised by the Times motion should be rejected and the Times subpoena quashed, for three overarching reasons.
2 First, Plaintiff has not provided any basis for the Court to find the articles and columns that are the subject of the subpoena to the Times (and, by extension, the identity of any government sources who may have provided information in those reports are important to his case. In fact, Plaintiff s own litigation conduct makes it obvious that he has never considered information from the Times to be necessary to his case. Plaintiff has never previously issued any subpoena to the Times or to any Times reporter. Moreover, in deposition after deposition of government officials, Plaintiff s counsel inquired about communications with as many as 37 reporters from other news organizations, without once asking about any of the 11 articles or columns that are the subject of the present subpoena to the Times. Second, it is no mere coincidence that Plaintiff suddenly became interested in probing the Times reporting here only after another federal court refused his request to levy ruinous fines against the Times for protecting its confidential sources, and then granted summary judgment to the Times in Plaintiff s libel suit. The inference that Plaintiff is using a perceived opportunity presented by this Court s March 30 discovery Order to seek another means of continuing his legal assault on the Times shortly after those setbacks is simply inescapable. Moreover, Plaintiff is simply wrong in suggesting that there is no potential impact on his libel case if his discovery request is allowed here, because the Virginia court s summary judgment and privilege rulings remain the subject of pending appeals. Third, Plaintiff is wrong as a matter of procedure when he contends that the Court should reach out now to resolve a source privilege the Times has yet to assert, and in any event that approach would backfire on Plaintiff if followed. The current record before the Court would indisputably require that the Times subpoena be quashed because Plaintiff has done nothing to meet his burden to overcome any source privilege that may be asserted. See Lee v. Dep t of 2
3 Justice, 413 F.3d 53, 60 (D.C. Cir (discussing burden on party seeking discovery from journalists in the face of privilege assertion. Pursuant to the law of this Circuit, when the reporter s privilege concerning confidential sources is asserted, the burden will be squarely on Plaintiff to demonstrate, at a minimum, both his need for discovery from the Times and that he has diligently attempted to exhaust alternative sources of the information he seeks from the Times. See id. at 59. Plaintiff s Opposition makes no showing whatsoever on either account, and the record demonstrates that he has wholly failed to explore any alternative sources of the information contained in the Times reporting. ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF S LITIGATION CONDUCT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE TIMES REPORTING IS NOT IMPORTANT TO HIS CLAIMS Plaintiff s 22-page Opposition never actually explains why he previously opted not to seek discovery in this action from the Times or why he needs such discovery now. Instead, Plaintiff appears to proceed on the premise that the Court has given him carte blanche to subpoena any news organization that may have ever reported anything about him. For reasons more fully discussed in the Reply Memorandum of The Associated Press and The Baltimore Sun Company ( AP/Sun Reply, incorporated here by reference, we respectfully submit that is not what the Court authorized, and the Times subpoena should therefore be quashed. With respect to the Times, the record is especially clear that Plaintiff has never believed its reporting need be the subject of discovery in this case. He proceeded for years in this action without ever previously issuing a subpoena to the Times, unlike all of the other news organizations he recently subpoenaed. Even more importantly, Plaintiff has not pursued any discovery about the 11 Times articles and columns listed on the subpoena during any of the numerous depositions he has taken in this action. 3
4 Because Plaintiff always anticipated that he might want to move to compel reporters to identify their sources at some point in this litigation, from the onset of discovery he sought to build a record showing that he had exhausted alternative means of identifying reporters sources, as the reporter s privilege requires. See Lee, 413 F.3d at (discussing exhaustion requirement; see also Declaration of John B. O Keefe ( O Keefe Decl., Ex. 12 at 134:4-9 (Plaintiff s counsel describing to a witness the exhaustion exercise that was the basis for his questions about contacts with specific reporters and news organizations other than the Times. As a result, Plaintiff deposed more than two dozen current and former FBI or DOJ employees whose knowledge of the anthrax investigation or interactions with the press make them potential sources of reporters. 1 In those depositions Plaintiff never inquired about any of the Times articles or columns at issue in this subpoena, even as he inquired about whether the witnesses were sources of information for various news reports from other press entities. Specifically: In at least twelve depositions, the witness was shown two exhibits, one listing 15 news organizations and another listing 37 reporters. Plaintiff s counsel then inquired about whether the witness had provided information about Plaintiff to any of the organizations or reporters on these lists. See, e.g., O Keefe Decl. Exs. 1 (Adams Dep. at 122:21-127:1; 4 (Carey Dep. at 158:4-169:20; 8 (Fitzgerald Dep. at 85:4-98:7; 9 (Garrett Dep. at 21:21-23:12; 10 (Harp Dep. at 70:20-84:19; 12 (Kohl Dep. at 134:4-137:6; 13 (Kortan Dep. at 221:15-225:7; 14 (Lambert Dep. at 50:16-63:11; 15 (Murray Dep. at 190:6-195:20; 16 (Reynolds Dep. at 41:11-45:18; 17 (Roth Dep. at 43:10-46:22; & 19 (Stockham Dep. at 170:11-172:4. These two exhibits do not include either the Times or its reporters. See id., Exs. 21 & 22. In other instances, rather than present these lists, Plaintiff s counsel orally recited the names of specific reporters to a witness or presented the witness with copies of specific news reports (in some cases reviewing dozens of articles or reporters, each time asking whether the witness had been a source, with respect to information about Plaintiff, for the particular reporter or news report. See, e.g., 1 Those witnesses include Dwight Adams, John Ashcroft, David Ayres, Thomas Carey, Barbara Comstock, Mark Corallo, Arthur Eberhart, James Fitzgerald, Bradley Garrett, Van Harp, David Israelite, Kenneth Kohl, Michael Kortan, Richard Lambert, Peter Murray, Robert Mueller, James Reynolds, Robert Roth, Bryan Sierra, Rex Stockham, and Debra Weierman. 4
5 id., Exs. 3 (Ayres Dep. at 266:8-274:4; 7 (Eberhart Dep. at 67:17-94:25; 11 (Israelite Dep. at 171:6-179:8; 18 (Sierra Dep. at 69:12-80:12, 196:15-264:13; 20 (Weierman Dep. 323:14-460:10. Again, not once in these depositions was any article or column that is the subject of the Times subpoena introduced or discussed in any way. In the very few instances when the name of a Times reporter came up during a deposition, it was not in reference to any of the articles at issue in this subpoena. For example, a few witnesses were asked briefly about a September 5, 2002, Times article by David Johnston, which reported that several senior law enforcement officials expressed embarrassment over an sent from the DOJ Office of Domestic Preparedness to Louisiana State University stating that the university should cease and desist using Plaintiff for work on DOJ-funded programs. See, e.g., id., Exs. 5 (Comstock Dep. at 205:16-207:10; 6 (Corallo Dep. at 127:3-131:21 & 18 (Sierra Dep. at 143:11-144:22; see also id., Ex. 2 (Ashcroft Dep. at 251:15-252:20 (discussing whether the caused the witness embarrassment. Plaintiff s counsel also asked at least one witness whether he was the source for a September 17, 2005, article published by the Times. See e.g., id., Ex. 1 (Adams Dep. at 174:5-177:22 (discussing deposition Exhibit 332. Neither article is among those that are the subject of the subpoena at issue here. Simply put, Plaintiff has quite deliberately never before pursued any discovery about the Times reporting, even though he had every opportunity to do so. This discovery record requires two conclusions. First, Plaintiff at the very least has not diligently pursued discovery from the Times. His blanket assertion that the media companies concede he has been diligent in pursuing discovery about sources, Opp. at 16, is utterly false with respect to the Times. Second, the total absence of any prior effort to obtain discovery from or about the Times confirms that the articles that are the subject of the present subpoena do not fall within Plaintiff s own definition of what is potentially important for this litigation. Accordingly, for each of these reasons the Court should quash the Times subpoena as beyond the permissible scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b(2(C ( The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods... shall be limited by the court if it determines that... the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought... or... the burden... of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 5
6 benefit, taking into account the needs of the case... and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues [at stake in the litigation]. ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c & 45(c(3. II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BELATED DISCOVERY SOUGHT HERE AND PLAINTIFF S PENDING LIBEL CASE FURTHER WARRANTS QUASHING THE TIMES SUBPOENA Plaintiff s Opposition does not even attempt to portray as mere coincidence the issuance of the Times subpoena shortly after his recent setbacks in the defamation suit. Plaintiff argues only that a ruling by this Court to compel the Times to reveal its confidential sources would not be inconsistent with rulings in the libel case. Opp. at Even on this point, Plaintiff is simply wrong. Plaintiff treats his libel suit as if it were over, never mentioning that the rulings to which he refers are the subject of pending appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Those appeals squarely address both the grant of summary judgment and the district court s order compelling the Times to reveal its confidential FBI sources. With respect to the Times sources, one issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly held that the law of Virginia governed the scope of the reporter s privilege, rather than the law of either New York or Maryland, which absolutely bar discovery of reporters confidential sources. Plaintiff s effort here would, if successful, circumvent the impact of any adverse decision by the Fourth Circuit holding that Plaintiff is not permitted to obtain the Times sources in the libel case. Through this parallel litigation, Plaintiff seeks the benefit of a different privilege law (i.e., federal law which is not absolute, and therefore hopes to win a disclosure ruling with respect to the very same sources that are the subject of litigation in his libel case. While differences in the applicable privilege laws and facts would not make rulings in the libel case preclusive here, Plaintiff s subpoena nonetheless invites just the sort of duplicative 6
7 litigation that the Supreme Court has deemed contrary to sound judicial policy. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976. Moreover, the potential for mischief goes beyond the possibility of inconsistent rulings in the event that the Fourth Circuit were to reverse the summary judgment ruling, and remand Plaintiff s libel case for trial, as Plaintiff urges it to do. For example, if Plaintiff were to force disclosure here, might Plaintiff ask this Court to levy sanctions against officers of the company who are to be witnesses in the libel case? Might Plaintiff then seek to present to the jury in his libel case evidence of any sanctions levied here in an effort to impeach the Times? The potential for mischief is obvious. In addition, Plaintiff s own arguments reinforce the inference that what he also seeks here is a second run at the Times in the event that his appeal in the Fourth Circuit proves fruitless. Plaintiff quotes at length arguments from the Times counsel in the libel case (who also represent the Times here that monetary sanctions would only be potentially appropriate against a third party held in civil contempt. Opp. at But that is precisely our point. Having failed to obtain such a penalty in the libel lawsuit, Plaintiff is now attempting to seize a perceived opportunity to litigate against the Times here as a third party and obtain the relief he was denied across the river. And, as more fully discussed in the AP/Sun Reply, Plaintiff s claim that he has no monetary incentive to do so is simply wrong, which further highlights the impropriety of making a post-judgment run at the Times in this case. See AP/Sun Reply Mem. at Given Plaintiff s complete absence of any prior interest in the Times throughout discovery in this case, and the service of this subpoena very shortly after the termination of the libel case in the trial court, the conclusion that this subpoena is being issued for reasons other 7
8 than normal efforts to obtain discovery is inescapable. For this reason as well, the subpoena should be quashed. III. THE COURT SHOULD IGNORE PLAINTIFF S OBFUSCATION OF PRIVILEGE ISSUES OR RECOGNIZE THAT HIS POSITION WOULD REQUIRE QUASHING THE TIMES SUBPOENA As the AP/Sun Reply explains more fully, Plaintiff misstates the privilege question raised by the Times motion to quash. It both ignores the privilege arguments the Times did raise, and improperly seeks to urge the Court to overcome a source privilege that has not yet been asserted. See AP/Sun Reply Mem. at However, if the Court were nonetheless to reach the source privilege issue, it plainly would be required to quash the subpoena to the Times. In addition to the reasons stated in the AP/Sun Reply, the record in this action conclusively demonstrates that Plaintiff has not even attempted to exhaust alternative sources for the information requested from the Times, having failed to question even one single witness about whether they were a source for any of the Times articles at issue. See, e.g., Riley v. City of Chester, 612 F.2d 708, 717 (3d Cir (contempt vacated where potential alternative source was questioned in detail, but never asked about specific leak to specific reporter; In re Special Proceedings, 291 F. Supp. 2d 44, 47 (D.R.I (special prosecutor deposed or interviewed fourteen witnesses about the specific leak in question, aff d, 373 F.3d 37 (1st Cir Accordingly, for this reason as well, the Court should grant the Times motion to quash Plaintiff s subpoena. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and for the separate reasons stated in the AP/Sun Reply, which are hereby incorporated by reference, the Times motion to quash should be granted. 8
9 May 29, 2007 Respectfully submitted, LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, L.L.P. By /s/ David A. Schulz (DC Bar No Nathan Siegel (DC Bar No Chad R. Bowman (DC Bar No th Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC ( Attorneys for The New York Times Company 9
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 RE: BLACKWATER ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT LITIGATION Case No. 1:09-cv-615 Case No. 1:09-cv-616 Case No. 1:09-cv-617
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THOMAS BURNETT, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case Number: 04ms03 (RBW AL BARAKA INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Defendants. ORDER On April
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00145-RMC Document 29 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAMES RYAN, DAVID ALLEN AND ) RONALD SHERMAN, on Behalf of ) Themselves and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Steven J. HATFILL, M.D., Plaintiff Civil No. 1:03-CV-01793 (RBW v. Attorney General John ASHCROFT, Timothy BERES, Daryl DARNELL, Van HARP,
More informationCase 0:12-cv WJZ Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:1-cv-61735-WJZ Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 1/13/01 Page 1 of 5 BROWARD BULLDOG, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, and DAN CHRISTENSEN, founder, operator and editor of the BrowardBulldog.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division 04/20/2018 ELIZABETH SINES et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 3:17cv00072 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document 0 Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW v. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-cv-00087 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION New York
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Plaintiff, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DJW/bh SAMUEL K. LIPARI, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. U.S. BANCORP, N.A., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION No. 07-2146-CM-DJW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:13-cv-02637-SRN-BRT Document 162 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Solutran, Inc. Case No. 13-cv-2637 (SRN/BRT) Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bancorp and Elavon,
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGS Document 90 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 90 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 7 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Doc. 210 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action
More informationCase 1:06-cv RBW Document 20 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01773-RBW Document 20 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER : FOUNDATION, : : Civil Action No. 06-1773 Plaintiff, : :
More informationCase 1:05-cv RCL Document 112 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE NO.
Case 1:05-cv-01548-RCL Document 112 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 10 AGUDAS CHASIDEI CHABAD OF THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA vs. CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01548-RCL
More informationIN 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
More informationCase 1:17-cv APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 17-cv-00144 (APM)
More informationPACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. Case 2:13-cv KJM-DAD Document 80 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case :-cv-0-kjm-dad Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of M. REED HOPPER, Cal. Bar No. E-mail: mrh@pacificlegal.org ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, Cal. Bar No. 0 E-mail: alf@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation Sacramento,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
VALAMBHIA et al v. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA et al Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VIPULA D. VALAMBHIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 18-cv-370 (TSC UNITED
More informationCase 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 informationCase 1:18-cr DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 93 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC CRIMINAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION
Case 4:14-cv-00139-HLM Document 34 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC., and DAVID JAMES, Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:17-cv ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02770-ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON and ANNE L. WEISMANN
More informationCase 1:10-cv JDB Document 7-1 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 7-1 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:10-cv-00651-JDB Document 7-1 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
More informationCase 1:18-cv RC Document 23 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-02084-RC Document 23 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v Civil Action No. 18-2084
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN AFTERGOOD, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 01-2524 (RMU CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Civil Action No. 6:09-CV LED
Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al Doc. 1098 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:17-cv TSC Document 23 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02187-TSC Document 23 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEAN LLC d/b/a FUSION GPS Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 1:17-cv-2187-TSC DEFENDANT BANK,
More informationCase 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 informationCase: 3:18-cv jdp Document #: 41 Filed: 01/16/19 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:18-cv-00763-jdp Document #: 41 Filed: 01/16/19 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WILLIAM WHITFORD, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BEVERLY R. GILL, et al., Case
More informationCase 1:15-mc P1 Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:15-mc-00081-P1 Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DISCOVERY FROM
More informationMotion to Compel ( Defendant s Motion ) and Plaintiff Joseph Lee Gay s ( Plaintiff ) Motion
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA LINCOLN COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 13 CVS 383 JOSEPH LEE GAY, Individually and On Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-708 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EARL TRUVIA; GREGORY
More informationCase 1:14-md JMF Document 4181 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 4181 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case :-cv-000-jls-nls Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 PATRICK A. GRIGGS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VITAL THERAPIES, INC.; TERRY WINTERS; and MICHAEL V. SWANSON, UNITED
More informationCase 1:17-cv RJL Document 51 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02187-RJL Document 51 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEAN LLC d/b/a FUSION GPS, Plaintiff, v. DEFENDANT BANK, Defendant, and PERMANENT
More informationCase 6:10-cv DGL-JWF Document 52 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 16
Case 6:10-cv-06229-DGL-JWF Document 52 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT TESTA, Plaintiff, -against- Civil Action No.: 10-06229(L) LAWRENCE BECKER,
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 16-15342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761
Case: 1:13-cv-01524 Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIAN LUCAS, ARONZO DAVIS, and NORMAN GREEN, on
More informationCase 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 08-231 (EGS) THEODORE
More informationCase 1:05-cr RBW Document 266 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 266 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also
More informationCase 3:10-cv BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969
Case 3:10-cv-00750-BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969 STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General DIANE KELLEHER Assistant Branch Director AMY POWELL amy.powell@usdoj.gov LILY FAREL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.
United States of America et al v. IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. et al Doc. 91 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION United States of America, ex rel. Bijan Oughatiyan,
More informationCase 2:17-cv RSM Document 27 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I.
Case :-cv-0-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 ROBERT SILCOX, v. Plaintiff, AN/PF ACQUISITIONS CORP., d/b/a AUTONATION FORD BELLEVUE, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-CV-1363 (EGS) U.S. DEPARTMENT
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901
Case: 1:13-cv-01569 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DUFFY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case
More informationCase 1:08-cv GBL-TCB Document 21 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 652
Case 1:08-cv-00254-GBL-TCB Document 21 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 652 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division NEMET CHEVROLET LTD. 153-12 Hillside
More informationCase 1:18-cv RC Document 46 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-02084-RC Document 46 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v Civil Action No. 18-2084
More informationCase 1:05-cv WMN Document 88 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:05-cv-01297-WMN Document 88 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: WMN 05 CV 1297 JOHN BAPTIST
More informationCase 1:02-cv JG -SMG Document 753 Filed 01/12/11 Page 1 of 6
Case 102-cv-02307-JG -SMG Document 753 Filed 01/12/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------X IBRAHIM TURKMEN, et al.,
More informationPARTIES JOINT RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER OF APRIL 28 TH, 2005
Case 1:01-cv-00400-EGS Document 38 Filed 08/01/2005 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CYNTHIA ARTIS, et al., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 01-0400 (EGS) v. ALAN
More informationCase 1:16-cv RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-00236-RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., v. BRIAN NEWBY, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Governor of the State of Colorado, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case 1:13-cv-01300-MSK-MJW Document 82 Filed 09/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-01300-MSK-MJW JOHN B. COOKE, Sheriff
More informationCase 6:15-cv AA Document 440 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 440 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 10 JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY H. WOOD Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ) INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ) PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 17-1351 ) DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., ) ) Defendants-Appellants.
More informationUNITED 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 informationCase 1:10-cr CKK Document 161 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cr-00225-CKK Document 161 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No.: 10-225 (CKK v. STEPHEN JIN-WOO KIM, also
More informationCase 1:05-cr RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Case :-cv-0-jlr Document Filed // Page of 0 JOHN DOE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CASE NO. C-JLR v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH AMHERST COLLEGE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN AFTERGOOD Plaintiff, v. Case No. 05-1307 (RBW NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE Defendant. PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO
More informationCase 1:13-cv GBL-TCB Document 33 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 2015
Case 1:13-cv-01566-GBL-TCB Document 33 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division CONKWEST, INC. Plaintiff, v.
More informationCase4:09-cv CW Document362 Filed01/15/15 Page1 of 11
Case:0-cv-0-CW Document Filed0// Page of KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California JAY C. RUSSELL Supervising Deputy Attorney General MARTINE N. D AGOSTINO Deputy Attorney General CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Case 1:13-cv-00139-EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SEQUOIA PACIFIC SOLAR I, LLC, ) and EIGER LEASE CO, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 13-139-C
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-psg-jpr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General EILEEN DECKER United States Attorney JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 5:14-cv-00685-M Document 4 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA THE CATHOLIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LCA; THE CATHOLIC INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationIN 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,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC. ) d/b/a Stone & Company, individually and ) on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationCase 1:08-cv RDB Document 83 Filed 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:08-cv-01281-RDB Document 83 Filed 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * JOHN DOE No. 1, et al., * Plaintiffs * v. Civil Action No.: RDB-08-1281
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case 2:17-cv-11630-NGE-RSW ECF No. 39 filed 07/23/18 PageID.509 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MICHAEL BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationCase 1:06-cv JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-02236-JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY ) No. 06-2245 (JR) v. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, et al., )
More informationCase 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:15-cv-02573-PSG-JPR Document 31 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:258 #19 (7/13 HRG OFF) Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk
More informationCase 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 informationSTEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D., Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., Civil Action No (RBW)
STEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D., Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., Civil Action No. 03-1793 (RBW) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 519 F. Supp. 2d 13 March 16, 2007, Decided SUBSEQUENT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
RED BARN MOTORS, INC. et al v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. et al Doc. 133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION RED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. COX ENTERPRISES,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Fifty-Second Report to the Court, recommending
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240 JOSEPH CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM AND ) RECOMMENDATION HARRAH S NC CASINO COMPANY,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:17-CV-150-D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:17-CV-150-D IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN HOLTON B. SHEPHERD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. O R
More informationCase 1:07-cv RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) NOLBERTA AGUILAR, et al., ) ) Petitioners and Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES
More informationLOCAL RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURT. [Adapted from the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana]
LOCAL RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURT [Adapted from the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana] Local Rule 1.1 - Scope of the Rules These Rules shall govern all proceedings
More informationCase 4:13-cv Document 318 Filed in TXSD on 06/23/17 Page 1 of 29
Case 4:13-cv-00095 Document 318 Filed in TXSD on 06/23/17 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CARLTON ENERGY GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ) ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 01-498 (RWR) ) OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ) TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA United States ex rel. Floyd Landis, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Tailwind Sports Corporation, et al., Defendants. WILLIAMS
More informationCase 3:11-cv DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00332-DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL
More informationCase 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,
More informationCase 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 875 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:36997
Case :-cv-0-ddp-vbk Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 VICTORIA LUND, individually and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased;
More informationCase 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 informationCase: 1:11-cv Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172
Case: 1:11-cv-05452 Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSE JIMENEZ MORENO and MARIA )
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 51 Filed: 05/25/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:235
Case: 1:10-cv-05473 Document #: 51 Filed: 05/25/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:235 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KIFAH MUSTAPHA, v. Plaintiff, JONATHAN E. MONKEN,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 3:03 CV 599 (CFD) - against - BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, July 13, 2010
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1900-N ORDER
Case 3:10-cv-01900-N Document 26 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID 457 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICK HAIG PRODUCTIONS, E.K., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) {1} Before the Court is the Motion of non-party National Western Life Insurance Company
AARP v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp., 2007 NCBC 4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY AARP, v. Plaintiff, AMERICAN FAMILY PREPAID LEGAL CORPORATION, INC. d/b/a AMERICAN FAMILY LEGAL PLAN; HERITAGE
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, Plaintiff, C.A. No. 1:04CV01032 (JDB v. JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United
More informationCase 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 informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 10-735 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. DEANIA M. JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent. On Petition
More information