FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/ :51 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B
|
|
- Leona Hood
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/ AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B
2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x VIJAY SINGH, Plaintiff, v. PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant x Index No /2013 PLAINTIFF VIJAY SINGH S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT S SECOND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ( CPLR ), Plaintiff Vijay Singh, by his attorneys Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC and Rosenblum & Reisman P.C., serves upon Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. ( PGA TOUR ) Responses and Objections ( Responses ) to Defendant s Second Request for the Production of Documents, dated March 3, 2014 ( Demands ). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These Responses reflect only the current status of Plaintiff s knowledge, understanding and belief respecting the matters about which inquiry has been made. As discovery in this action proceeds, Plaintiff may discover additional or different information or documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, clarify or further explain these Responses. These Responses are without prejudice to Plaintiff s right to use or rely on, at any time, any subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these Responses as a result of mistake, error, oversight or inadvertence. Plaintiff further reserves the right to object on appropriate grounds to the introduction of any portion of these Responses into evidence. Any inadvertent disclosure by Plaintiff of information protected by the attorney-client 1
3 privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection shall not constitute a waiver of that privilege or protection. These Responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to discovery conducted in the above-captioned action. Each Response is subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, privacy, relevance, specificity, over breadth, undue burden, materiality, confidential proprietary or trade secret material or admissibility) which would require the exclusion of any response contained herein. All such objections are reserved and may be interposed at any subsequent hearing or trial. Plaintiff responds to these Demands as he interprets and understands them. If Defendant subsequently asserts an interpretation of the Demands that differs from Plaintiff s understanding, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend his objections and/or Responses herein. The fact that Plaintiff has responded to the Demands is not an admission, or a concession of the existence, of any fact set forth or assumed by the Demands nor does a response constitute evidence of any fact set forth or assumed. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. These General Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the Responses made with respect to each separate request for documents. The inclusion of any specific objection below is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed, a waiver of any General Objection or of any other objection made herein or asserted at a later date. In addition, the failure to include at this time any general or specific objection to a request is neither intended as, nor shall be deemed, a waiver of Plaintiff s right to assert that objection or any other objection at a later date. 2. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they seek production or 2
4 information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable statutory or common law privilege, prohibition, limitation or immunity from disclosure. Plaintiff will not produce such privileged materials, and any inadvertent production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege, immunity, prohibition or limitation with respect to such documents, information or any work product doctrine which may attach thereto. Nothing contained in these objections is intended as, or shall be deemed, a waiver of any attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, immunity, prohibition or limitation. 3. Plaintiff objects to the Demands as unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent they seek (a) the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence; (b) materials that are unduly burdensome to locate or obtain; (c) the production of materials over which Defendant has possession, custody, control or a means of access; and (d) publicly available materials that are already in Defendant s possession or otherwise available to Defendant. 4. Plaintiff objects to each definition, instruction and Demand calling for each, all or any person(s), document(s), record(s), information or communication(s), or similar such language, on the grounds it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, confusing, overbroad or otherwise lack sufficient precision or particularity to permit a response. 6. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they call for a legal 3
5 conclusion. 7. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they seek to impose requirements or conditions beyond the scope permitted by the CPLR. 8. Plaintiff will respond to the Demands based on Plaintiff s own present knowledge, information and belief. Plaintiff s responses are at all times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation discloses. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend these Responses and objections upon, among other things, discovery of additional facts and materials and other developments or proceedings in this matter. Plaintiff reserves the right to make use of, or introduce at any hearing or at trial, materials responsive to the Demands discovered subsequent to the date of the initial production in response to the Demands. 9. Plaintiff will respond to each request with materials currently in Plaintiff s possession, custody or control. 10. Any agreement by Plaintiff to produce a document or documents in partial response to any portion of the Demands, or the voluntary production of documents not called for by the Demands, is not a waiver of the right to object to the production of other documents specified in the Demands. 11. Plaintiff s production of materials in response to the Demands is not intended to waive, and does not constitute any waiver of, any and all objections which Plaintiff may have to the admissibility, authenticity or relevance of the materials produced. For all materials produced in response to the Demands, Plaintiff reserves until the hearing or trial of this matter all objections and other questions regarding the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege and admissibility of any such documents as evidence. 4
6 12. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they seek information without limitation to any time period. DOCUMENTS DEMANDED DEMAND NO. 1 All Documents and Communications concerning Deer Antler Spray, The Ultimate Spray or IGF-l. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 1 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 1. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 2 All Documents and Communications concerning whether The Ultimate Spray or any Deer Antler Spray product contains any Banned Substance. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 2 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 2. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged 5
7 DEMAND NO. 3 All Documents and Communications concerning Your use of The Ultimate Spray. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 3 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 3. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, and specifically denying that Singh used a deer antler velvet product by spraying such a product in his mouth or on his body as that term is set forth in the PGA TOUR s Anti-Doping Program, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 4 All Documents and Communications concerning Your efforts to determine whether The Ultimate Spray or any Deer Antler Spray product contained any Banned Substance before You used The Ultimate Spray. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 4 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 4. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 5 All Documents and Communications concerning any investigation or due diligence You performed concerning SWATS, Mitch Ross or Christopher Key before You used The Ultimate Spray. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 5 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 5. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is 6
8 vague and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response and specifically denying that Singh used a deer antler velvet product by spraying such a product in his mouth or on his body as that term is set forth in the PGA TOUR s Anti-Doping Program, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 6 All Documents and Communications concerning any testing or analysis conducted on The Ultimate Spray at Your request, or otherwise obtained by You, including Documents and Communications sufficient to identify (a) complete internal and external chain of custody documentation; (b) a list of all Persons involved in the testing, including signatures and/or initials and position title(s); (c) a summary of the analytical principles of the testing methods utilized; (d) injection sequence verification data; (e) all testing for any screening or confirmation tests, including chromatograms (or other relevant data) for negative controls, positive controls (with concentration indicated, if relevant), standard(s)/calibrator(s) (if relevant), and sample aliquot(s); (f) any and all results of testing; and (g) all correspondence (including electronic communication) concerning the testing. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 6 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 6. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 7 All Communications, from January 1, 2010 through the present, between You and any potential or actual sponsors concerning the possibility of You serving as a sponsor or endorser. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 7 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 7. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to 7
9 supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 8 Documents sufficient to identify revenues and/or profits that You have derived from endorsements or sponsorships, by year, from January 1, 2008 to the present. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 8 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 8. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 9 Documents sufficient to identify any endorsement or sponsorship agreements You have entered into between January 1, 2008 and the present. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 9 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 9. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 10 All Documents and Communications concerning any financial loss, injury or damage, financial or otherwise, that You allege that You have suffered as a result of the TOUR's decision to discipline You or any other alleged misconduct by the TOUR complained of in this action. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 10 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 10. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the ground it seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. 8
10 DEMAND NO. 11 All Documents and Communications concerning Your endorsement or sponsorship agreement with Hopkins Golf, including the negotiations that culminated in that agreement. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 11 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 11. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 12 All Documents and Communications concerning the escrowing of Your earnings by the TOUR. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 12 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 12. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 13 All Documents and Communications concerning the "public ridicule and humiliation" that You allege that You have suffered, as set forth in paragraph 104 of the Complaint. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 13 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 13. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and 9
11 control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 14 All Communications between You and any Person, including any TOUR member or any representative of a media source or publication, concerning (i) Deer Antler Spray; (ii) IGF-l; (iii) SWATS; or (iv) the TOUR's decision to impose discipline against You. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 14 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 14. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 15 All Documents and Communications other than those provided by or to TOUR concerning any allegation or claim that You, at any time, have (i) violated the rules of any golf organization, event organizer or other governing or sanctioning body; or (ii) attempted to gain an unfair competitive advantage relative to other golfers. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 15 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 15. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has 10
12 possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 16 All Documents and Communications concerning discipline imposed against You by the Southeast Asia Golf Federation, including discipline imposed on You concerning Your conduct at the Indonesian Open. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 16 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 16. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 17 All Documents and Communications concerning discipline imposed against You by the Australian PGA. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 17 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 17. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is 11
13 vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 18 All Documents and Communications concerning any discipline that any golf organization, event organizer or other governing or sanctioning body has imposed against You, to the extent such Documents and Communications are not produced in Your responses to the document requests above. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 18 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 18. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. 12
14 DEMAND NO. 19 All editions of The Greensheet that You have received from the TOUR since January 1, RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 19 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 19. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. Dated New York, New York April 3, 2014 PETER R. GINSBERG LAW, LLC By By _s/ Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Christopher R. Deubert 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY (646) pginsberg@prglaw.com cdeubert@prglaw.com ROSENBLUM & REISMAN P.C. Jeffrey S. Rosenblum, pro hac vice _s/ Jeffrey S. Rosenblum 80 Monroe Avenue, Suite 950 Memphis, TN (901) jeffr@randrfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Vijay Singh 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/ :39 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 582 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X VIJAY SINGH, : Index No.: 651659/2013 : Plaintiff, : Hon. Eileen Bransten, Justice.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2017. Exhibit D
Exhibit D SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAARTEN DE JONG, -against- WILCO FAESSEN, Plaintiff, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2012 INDEX NO /2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2012
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2012 INDEX NO. 652200/2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------
More informationDEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST AND CONTINUING INTERROGATORIES
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA v. Plaintiff,, Case No.: Defendant., DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST AND CONTINUING INTERROGATORIES My name is, and I am the Defendant
More informationFILED: 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
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Chapter 11
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN In re ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. Chapter 11 Case No. 12-43166-TJT Judge Thomas J. Tucker (Jointly Administered) ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/01/ :41 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/01/2016. Exhibit C
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/01/2016 04:41 PM INDEX NO. 653611/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/01/2016 Exhibit C JEFFREY G. STEINBERG KEVIN F. CAVALIERE STEINBERG & CAVALIERE, LLP SO MAIN
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2016 EXHIBIT C
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2016 06:54 PM INDEX NO. 650369/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2016 EXHIBIT C SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LEONID L. LEBEDEV,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2015. Exhibit 1.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2015 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 652471/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2015 Exhibit 1 Document1 SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SNI/SI
More informationSingh v PGA Tour, Inc NY Slip Op 31078(U) May 15, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases
Singh v PGA Tour, Inc. 2017 NY Slip Op 31078(U) May 15, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651659/2013 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/29/ :10 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X VIJAY SINGH, : Index No.: 651659/2013
More informationFILED: 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,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2015. ExhibitA
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/03/2015 06:04 PM INDEX NO. 650312/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2015 ExhibitA SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEW YORK COUNTYOFNEW YORK BANK HAPOALIM B.M., vs.
More informationFILED: 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
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JAMES TRACY, Plaintiff, Case No. 9:16-cv-80655-RLR-JMH v. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, a/k/a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez
Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow Doc. 34 Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MARK J. GAINOR, Plaintiff,
More informationDEFENDANTS' VERIFIED ANSWER
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2016 11:34 AM INDEX NO. 154310/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x KRISHNA DEBYSINGH, -against-
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationTEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY
TEXAS DISCOVERY Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW 2. 1999 REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY 3. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLANS 4. FORMS OF DISCOVERY A. Discovery Provided for by the Texas
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action File No.: v. Defendant. CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER By stipulation and agreement of the parties,
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant. GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1. The following responses are without in any way waiving or intending to waive:
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Acme Home & Garden, LLC, v. John Doe, Plaintiff, DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Contract Court File No.: xx-cv-xx-xxx DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 WAYNE K. LEMIEUX (SBN 01 W. KEITH LEMIEUX (SBN 0 CHRISTINE CARSON (SBN. LEMIEUX & O'NEILL 1 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 0 Westlake Village, CA 1 Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys
More informationSTIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Filed D.C. Sl\p"~rj:)r 10 Apr: ]() P03:07 Clerk ot Court C'j'FI. STEVEN 1. ROSEN Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION v. Case No.: 09 CA 001256 B Judge Erik P. Christian
More informationRule 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
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/ :51 PM
Exhibit G FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2016 02/07/2017 04:42 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 156798/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2016 02/07/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationCOMES NOW, Plaintiff, United Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "United" or
UNITED CORPORATION, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS /ST. JOHN v. Plaintiff, WAHEED HAMED, (a/k/a Willy or Willie Hamed), Case No.: 2013 -CV -101 ACTION FOR DAMAGES JURY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1891-JTC
More informationMOTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 11 U.S.C.
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 715-3275 Facsimile: (212) 715-8000 Thomas Moers Mayer Kenneth H. Eckstein Robert T. Schmidt Adam
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/ :52 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2017
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2017 0452 PM INDEX NO. 190138/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF 02/01/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In Re NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2015 04:18 PM INDEX NO. 154070/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x
More informationDiscovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law
Discovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law Michael Grow Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., United States Summary and Outline Parties to civil actions or inter partes proceedings before the United
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H 1 HOUSE BILL 0 Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information. (Public) Sponsors: Representatives Glazier, T. Moore, Ross, and Jordan (Primary Sponsors).
More informationFILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/03/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/03/2016 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 25545/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ------------------------------------------------------x
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PLAINTIFF(S), Plaintiff(s), Case No. RG CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER RE: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL DEFENDANTS, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: DEPARTMENT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Aubin et al v. Columbia Casualty Company et al Doc. 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM J. AUBIN, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-290-BAJ-EWD COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY,
More informationFederal 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;
More informationASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING PRIVILEGES UNDER THE NEW RULES OF DISCOVERY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW FOUNDATION CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION ADVANCED CIVIL DISCOVERY UNDER THE NEW RULES June 1-2, 2000 Dallas, Texas June 8-9, 2000 Houston, Texas ASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION., ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant.
NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION -CVD-, ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant. ) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X PRIME HOMES LLC, Plaintiff Index No.: 151308l2016 -against- Verified Answer
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/18/2012 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/18/2012
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/18/2012 INDEX NO. 653645/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/18/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN 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,
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 5 1
Article 5. Depositions and Discovery. Rule 26. General provisions governing discovery. (a) Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 91234467 Party Correspondence Address Submission Filer's Name Filer's email Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA843411
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2016 01:04 PM INDEX NO. 810002/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X STEVEN C. HORN, Plaintiff,
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 45C 1
Article 45C. Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. 1-569.1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) "Arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board, commission, or other
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/03/ :57 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/03/2016
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/03/2016 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 508492/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/03/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS x ABDUL CHOUDHRY - against - Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA PATRICK C. DESMOND, MARY C. DESMOND, Individually, and MARY C. DESMOND, as Administratrix of the Estate of PATRICK W. DESMOND v. Plaintiffs, NARCONON
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1891-JTC
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Orlando Sanchez v. Experian Infomation Solutions Inc. Doc. 1 1 1 Douglas L. Clark (SBN 0) JONES DAY El Camino Real, Suite 0 San Diego, California 0 Telephone: +1... Facsimile: +1... Email: dlclark@jonesday.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946
Case 4:17-cv-02946 Document 3 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas
More information11/16/2017 1:46 PM 17CV10996
//0 : PM CV0 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF TILLAMOOK 0 WILLIAM B. WALTON, an individual, JAMES JEFFERSON WALTON, JR, an individual, and VICTORIA K. WALTON, an individual,
More informationFILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 08/15/ :34 AM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/15/2017 EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F Case 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 812 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/20/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2007 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2016 EXHIBIT D
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2016 05:44 PM INDEX NO. 603770/2007 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2016 EXHIBIT D SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK... X HELLENIC AMERICAN
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationHarper v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 32618(U) September 30, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: Judge: Dawn M.
Harper v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 32618(U) September 30, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: 501655-2012 Judge: Dawn M. Jimenez Salta Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Plaintiff Case No. RG11 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE JO-LYNNE Q. LEE DEPARTMENT
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationSAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. These responses and objections are made without prejudice to, and are not a waiver of, SDG&E and SoCalGas right to rely on other facts or documents in these proceedings. 2. By
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Western Alliance Bank v. Jefferson Doc. 1 1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Western Alliance Bank, Plaintiff, :1-cv-01 JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION Richard Jefferson, [Re: Motions at
More informationediscovery Demystified
ediscovery Demystified Presented by: Robin E. Stewart Of Counsel Kansas City Robin.Stewart@KutakRock.com (816) 960-0090 Why Kutak Rock s ediscovery Practice Exists Every case, regardless of size, has an
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EVA SCRIVO FIFTH AVENUE, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ANNIE RUSH and COSETTE FIFTH AVENUE, LLC, Defendants. Index No. 656723/2016 VERIFIED ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS
More informationCase 1:14-cv TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-00857-TSC-DAR Document 27 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
More informationFILED: 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
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2015
1 of 23 2 of 23 Exhibit A 3 of 23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2015 03:44 PM INDEX NO. 162228/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/ :21 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2016 01:21 PM INDEX NO. 150270/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2016 PXC/1654028 BU-13-06-04-09-001 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW
More informationDEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 08/28/2016 02:19 PM INDEX NO. 32209/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2016 SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX X Index No: Federal National Mortgage
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/ :40 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2016 1040 AM INDEX NO. 152848/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/20/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ZOE DENISON, Plaintiff, INDEX
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
5:16-cv-11367-JEL-EAS Doc # 34 Filed 06/08/17 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 457 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ELIZABETH MOELLER and NICOLE BRISSON, individually and on behalf
More informationArbitration Rules. Administered. Effective July 1, 2013 CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES. International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution
International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES Administered Arbitration Rules Effective July 1, 2013 30 East 33rd Street 6th Floor New York, NY 10016 tel +1.212.949.6490
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/2014 08:50 PM INDEX NO. 651926/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY GREYSTONE FUNDING CORP., Plaintiff,
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/10/ :35 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2018 EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/08/2018 04;47 PM WATER STREET REALTY GROUP LLC and YARON HERSHCO, Defendants,....----X -- â â ----- â WATER STREET REALTY GROUP LLC and YARON HERSHCO, Third-Party
More informationNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2010. Plaintiffs,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2010 INDEX NO. 600291/2010 SCANNED 0N411612010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2010. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK GLOBAL ACCESS INVESTMENT ADVISOR
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/31/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/31/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/31/2015 04:54 PM INDEX NO. 156171/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/31/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., -against-
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2017
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2017 1200 AM INDEX NO. 656279/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/01/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationCase Doc 89 Filed 07/26/17 Entered 07/26/17 16:29:16 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11
Document Page 1 of 11 FILED & JUDGMENT ENTERED Steven T. Salata July 26 2017 Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Western District of North Carolina J. Craig Whitley United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES
More informationFILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2014 INDEX NO /2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2014
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/16/2014 INDEX NO. 23643/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/16/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ----------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationPLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1
PLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1 In The Case Of Kevin Burkhammer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Allied Interstate LLC; and, Does 1-20, Inclusive, 15CV0567 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
More informationM.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Effective January 1, 2013, Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 is adopted, as follows.
M.R. 24138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered November 28, 2012. Effective January 1, 2013, Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 is adopted, as follows. ILLINOIS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article
More informationThis opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ----ooooo---- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooooo---- Sabrina Rahofy, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, Lynn Steadman, an individual; and
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/ :21 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/19/2016 04:21 PM INDEX NO. 190383/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/19/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AVON PRODUCTS, INC., CLEVELAND NA INVESTOR LLC
More informationFILED: 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
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SAMUEL K. LIPARI, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 07-CV-02146-CM-DJW U.S. BANCORP, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants. DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM
More informationSirs: Let the plaintiff, ELRAC LLC d/b/a ENTERPRISE RENT-A- PRESENT: Hon. GERALD LEBOVITS, J.S.C.
At an IAS Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, at IAS General Assignment Part 7: Room 345 held in and for the County, City and State of New York, at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street,
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/11/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/11/2017
FILED KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/11/2017 1143 PM INDEX NO. 512945/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF 09/11/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationRESOLUTION DIGEST
RESOLUTION 04-02-04 DIGEST Requests for Admissions: Service of Supplemental Requests Amends Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 to allow parties to propound a supplemental request for admission. RESOLUTIONS
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/22/ :16 AM INDEX NO /2015
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11:16 AM INDEX NO. 503285/2015 NYSCEF (FILED: DOC. KINGS NO. 194 COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2018 08:13 PMt RECEIVED INDEX NYSCEF: NO. 503285/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationPLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF DEL NORTE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
35987149 Feb 16 2011 12:13PM DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY, COLORADO Denver City and County Building 1437 Bannock St. Denver, Colorado 80202 Plaintiffs: ANTHONY LOBATO, et al. and Plaintiff-Intervenors:
More informationFILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM
FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2017 12:02 PM INDEX NO. EFCA2016-002373 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA FRANK JAKUBOWKI AND GLORIA
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2015 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 651388/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X NATIONAL AUDITING SERVICES CONSULTING, LLC, Index No.: 650670/16 -against- Plaintiff,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/20/ :42 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/20/2015. Exhibit A
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/20/2015 11:42 AM INDEX NO. 158552/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/20/2015 Exhibit A FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2013 INDEX NO. 158552/2013 NYSCEF DOC.
More informationINDEX NO /2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 595 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2011
INDEX NO. 104675/2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 595 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationStanding Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals
Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/ :03 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2016 02:03 PM INDEX NO. 157522/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, AT INDEPENDENCE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, AT INDEPENDENCE CONNIE CURTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, WAGGIN TRAIN, LLC and NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,
More informationLA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]: (1) Arbitration organization means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration
More informationCOUNTY 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
More information