UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
|
|
- Joanna Bradley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC., ) AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR HEALTH ) CARE REFORM AND NATIONAL ) LEGAL & POLICY CENTER, ) Civil Action ) No Plaintiffs, ) ) (Judge Lamberth) v. ) HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, ) DONNA E. SHALALA, Secretary of ) Health and Human Services, ) LLOYD E. BENTSEN, Secretary of ) the Treasury, LES ASPIN, ) Secretary of Defense, JESSE ) BROWN, Secretary of Veterans ) Affairs, RONALD H. BROWN, ) Secretary of Commerce, ROBERT ) B. REICH, Secretary of Labor, ) LEON E. PANETTA, Director of ) the Office of Management and ) Budget, ALICE RIVLIN, Deputy ) Director of the Office of ) Management and Budget, CAROL ) RASCO, IRA MAGAZINER and ) JUDITH FEDER, White House ) Advisors, THE PRESIDENT'S ) TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL ) HEALTH CARE REFORM, the ) INTERDEPARTMENTAL WORKING ) GROUP OF THE PRESIDENT'S TASK ) FORCE ON NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ) REFORM, and its CLUSTER GROUPS, ) WORKING GROUPS and SUBGROUPS, ) et al., ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFFS' COMBINED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RULE Ii SANCTIONS AND FOR A RULE OF CONTEMPT TO ISSUE AGAINST IRA MAGAZINER AND MOTION FOR ORDER mat FACTS BE TAKER AS
2 ESTABLISHED AND PROHIBITING AND STRIKING CERTAIN CLAIMS, DEFENSES AND EVIDENCE
3 The Plaintiffs, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC. ("AAPS") AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM ("ACHCR"), and NATIONAL LEGAL & POLICY CENTER ("NLPC"), submit the within Combined Reply Memorandum in SuPport of their Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and for a Rule of Contempt to Issue Against Ira Magaziner and their Motion for an Order That Facts Be Taken as Established and Prohibiting and Striking Certain Claims, Defenses and Evidence. ARGUMENT I. THE DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT TH ROUGHOUT THIS LITIGATION WARRANTS THE IMPOSITION OF RULE 11 AND RULE 37 SANCTIONS. In their Combined Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and for a Rule of Contempt to Issue Against Ira Magaziner and to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order That facts Be Taken as Established, and Prohibiting and Striking Certain Claims, Defenses and Evidence ("Defendants' Reply Memorandum"), the Defendants go to great lengths to further attempt to evade the consequences of past conduct which they cavalierly categorize as a mere "litigation approach". What the Defendants cannot contest is that the linchpin of their "litigation approach" has been complete misrepresentations --which were and are --totally contradicted by documentation in their possession at the time the representations were made. This conduct has unnecessarily prolonged this litigation, has unnecessarily increased the Plaintiffs' costs of pursuing this litigation, and has forced the Plaintiffs and this court to engage in a foolish and burdensome game of "cat and mouse", with the Defendants' position constantly changing like a 2
4 chameleon to suit their short -term objective of unduly prolonging the inevitable result here. The Defendants so much as acknowledge the burdensomeness of their "litigation approach" by quoting their own initial summary judgment memoranda, stating that "it would be a substantial burden for defendants and this Court to make a person-by-person assessment that each 'member' worked 'full -time'." Defendants' Reply Memorandum, at 10. Apparently, the Defendants found no problem whatsoever in forcing the Plaintiffs to sift through the documents and other discovery responses in order to carry this burden, which the plaintiffs have so thoroughly done that the Defendants have now chosen to jettison the "full -time officer or employee" dodge like a politically embarrassing White House advisor. Clearly, the Defendants took a position totally contradicted by their own documentation for the improper purpose of causing unnecessary delay and undue and unwarranted burden upon the Plaintiffs, conduct clearly proscribed by Rule 11.1 In sum, now that the Defendants' previous contention that the Interdepartmental working Group of the President's Task Force on National Health Care The Defendants claim that the fact that Plaintiffs have not offered them an opportunity to recant their position warrants a denial of the Rule 11 Motion is laughable. The Defendants acknowledge any such offer would not have changed their position and thus, would have been futile. Since the Defendants are so versed in the Federal Rules, they are certainly aware that on March 1, 1994, they were required to disclose evidence to the plaintiffs, including the preliminary Work Plan attached to the Third Magaziner Declaration, which was never disclosed in discovery, and only a portion of which was attached to a previous memorandum filed by the Defendants in this Court, an overtly misleading "litigation approach" proscribed not only by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of civil procedure, but also by the basic ethical requirement of candor toward this tribunal.
5 Reform, its Working Groups, Cluster GrouPs and Subgroups were composed wholly of full -time officers and employees of the federal government has outlived its usefulness as a delay device, the Defendants have abandoned it, seeking instead to obfuscate and mislead this Court on other matters. Manifestly, sanctions are in order to deter this dilatory and burdensome "litigation approach". II. A RULE OF CONTEMPT SHOULD ISSUE AGAINST IRA MAGAZINER. A classic example of the now predictable "litigation approach" is the Defendants' contention that there is no basis for a Rule of contempt to issue against Ira Magaziner. First, Defendants claim that Mr. Magaziner did not violate any Court order, and therefore, a Rule of Contempt cannot issue. In addition to assuming that a Court order is required for a party to be obligated to testify truthfully and not mislead a federal court during litigation, this argument flies in the face of established law holding that failing to testify truthfully and misleading a federal court is per se grounds for contempt. See, Wiideman v. McKay, 132 F.R.D. 62, 66 (D.Nev. 1990) (any person who files a false affidavit is subject to contempt proceeding); united states V. Thoreen, 653 F.2d 1332, (9th Cir. 1981) (attorney' s swearing to and filing of false affidavits is contumacious deceptive behavior punishable by contempt); United States V. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 1979) (false testimony can amount to contemptuous conduct when added to element of perjury there is the further element of obstruction to the court in the performance of its duty). 4
6 Second, the Defendants claim that "Mr. Magaziner's first declaration was not misleading in any way and, in fact, was fully supported by subsequent declarations and documentary evidence", Defendants' Reply Memorandum, at 13, is utterly specious. In his first Declaration filed with this Court on March 3, 1993, and upon which this Court relied in making its initial ruling, Magaziner testified that "[o]nly federal government employees serve as members of the interdepartmental working group". First Magaziner Declaration, 11. Magaziner also testified as follows: The working group has also retained a wide range of consultants, who attend working group meetings on an intermittent basis, either with or without compensation... These consultants have not had any supervisory role or decision -making authority in connection with the consulting services they have provided to the working group, but instead provide information and opinion to working group members. First Magaziner Declaration, 13. The documents produced by the Defendants reveal that scores of persons who served on the Interdepartmental Working Group were assigned no status whatsoever, "SQE", "consultant", or otherwise. The sign -in lists and Secret Service entry records also reveal that scores of these persons attended numerous meetings and were in the Old Executive Office Building on a large number of days. Mr. Magaziner's' testimony that all members were federal government employees was patently false and misleading. The false statements, further, relate to a material issue of the case. Indeed, while the Defendants now claim it is too burdensome for them to verify and argue the status of the individuals who served on the Interdepartmental Working Group of the president's Task Force on 5
7 National Health Care Reform, its working Groups, cluster Groups and Subgroups, Mr. Magaziner gave sworn testimony in this Court regarding the issue, testimony which the Defendants now cannot verify. Mr. Magaziner either gave knowingly false testimony on the composition of the Working Group, or did not review records or make any inquiry or investigation so as to have the personal knowledge which, of course, was a prerequisite to his giving testimony on the composition issue in the first instance. As to Magaziner's claim that "consultants" had no supervisory role in the Interdepartmental Working Group, the documentation produced by Defendants plainly contradicts this testimony. For example, the Defendants' own documentation reveals that Arnold Epstein was the Chair of Working Group 9, "Quality Measurement". Epstein was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow. Mr. Epstein was no more a federal employee than is the undersigned. Marion Secundy and Nancy Dubler were the co -leaders of Working Group 17, "Ethical Foundations of the New System". Neither of these persons were assigned any status whatsoever by the Defendants. Mark Smith, a person classified by the Defendants as a "consultant" in their initial discovery responses, was the co - leader of Working Group 22 and leader of cluster VIII. Mr. Smith was Vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Thomas 0. Pyle, also labeled a "consultant" by the Defendants, was the chair of cluster III, "New System Infrastructure". cluster XIV, Group 34, "Numbers Audit", was composed entirely of non -federal personnel who had no status whatsoever assigned to them. Simi Litvak, who 6
8 was employed by the World Institute on Disability, and who was assigned no status by the Defendants, was the leader of Working Group 36, "Disability Cross -Cutting Work Group". Working Group 39, "Minority Issues Review Group" was composed entirely of non -federal personnel. Mr. Magaziner has never offered any statement withdrawing the testimony in his first Declaration regarding the composition of the Working Groups. Additionally, Mr. Magaziner has not submitted any declaration in opposition to the Plaintiffs' verified Motion. In sum, the first Magaziner Declaration is a total sham in light of documents verified by Marjorie Tarmey, Mr. Magaziner's own assistant. Interestingly, Mr. Magaziner now states that he assigned the leaders to the various Cluster Groups and Working Groups. Surely, if he did, he knew their status, and his testimony that "consultants" exercised no supervisory role was a knowingly false statement of material fact, as was his statement that only federal employees served on the Interdepartmental Working group of the president's Task Force on National Health Care Reform, its Cluster Groups, Working Groups and Subgroups. III. THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S NOVEMBER 9, 1993 ORDER. The Defendants' assertion that they complied with this Court's November 9, 1993 Discovery order, like their reading of Magaziner's Declarations, is equally the product of wishful thinking and self - serving revisionist history. The Defendants' claim that neither the November 9 order, nor the Plaintiffs' discovery requests, required the Defendants to distinguish between working group "members" and "participants" is belied by the Defendants' First 7
9 Discovery Responses. There, the Defendants clearly classified persons listed as "SGE's i.e. members" and "consultants". Why did the Defendants make this distinction and assign classifications to those persons if such was not within the clear tenor and import of the discovery requests? The answer is obvious: the Defendants knew that such was the case and only chose to comply with the plaintiffs' Discovery Requests when they felt like it. The Defendants' construction of the plaintiffs' Discovery Requests is likewise shallow and plainly insulting to the Plaintiffs and this Court. The Defendants attempt to justify withholding the Preliminary Work Plan and only partial disclosure of that document to this Court is indefensible. The Defendants' niggardly construction of the term "identify" and their subjective understanding of this term is contradicted by the history of this case. First, the Request for Production of Documents, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 34, is a simple document which requests production or the disclosure of documents. The Defendants certainly possess the knowledge to understand the import of the request which was served upon them. Second, if production of documents wasn't required, why did the Defendants produce documents to the Plaintiffs, albeit in "dribbles and drabs", in their initial responses to the discovery requests? To ask the question is to answer it. Moreover, the Defendants now state in their Reply Memorandum that they did not have to produce the working group documents that were leaked to the Bureau of National Affairs, nor did they have to produce the "weekly summaries", "option drafts", "discussion drafts", "master 8
10 calendars", "briefing books", "tollgate schedules" or "updated work plan". Even assuming, arguendo, that one can accept this argument, the Defendants never even "identified" these documents in their discovery responses, despite their now claiming that this was all that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests required according to. their subjective understanding. The Defendants are simply digging themselves a deeper grave on this issue in order to justify their conscious withholding of documents in discovery, documents which were plainly germane and damaging to their defense. Furthermore, the Defendants' assertions regarding their failure to produce "option drafts", "discussion drafts", "master calendars", "briefing books", "tollgate schedules" or "updated work plan" because they are substantive documents ignore the fact that Defendants have produced other substantive documents under the terms of an Agreed Protective Order. The Defendants simply reiterate an argument now which did not carry the day with the Court on November 9, 1993, in a facile attempt to explain their nondisclosure of information to the Plaintiffs under the terms of that Order and the Agreed Protective Order entered by this Court shortly thereafter. The Defendants' non -compliance in this regard is self-evident. In sum, the November 9, 1993 Order constituted a broad grant to the Plaintiffs' Motion to compel, and any exceptions to this broad grant were enumerated by the Court. The Defendants can point to no exceptions set forth in the November 9, 1993 order which justify their withholding of the information requested, the existence of which was only recently revealed by the documents 9
11 authenticated by Marjorie Tarmey and the "Preliminary Work Plan" attached to the Third Magaziner Declaration. Finally, the Defendants' bald assertion that Plaintiffs made no attempts at discovery by way of deposition prior to the filing of the Notion for summary Judgment is simply not true. Plaintiffs' counsel contacted Defendants' counsel to establish an agreeable time to take the deposition of Mr. Magaziner. Declaration of Kent Masterson Brown. No reply whatsoever was ever received by plaintiffs' counsel. As the Defendants had so thoroughly delayed this process, and due to the fact that the documents at issue pertain to matters being considered at the national level at that time and currently, time was of the essence in terms of the disposition of this case. Further, the issue was presented to plaintiffs after Defendants moved for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs were given no choice but to move on the basis of the documentary evidence verified by Marjorie Tarmey, Mr. Magaziner's assistant (which is more than ample to prevail on the Motions and award plaintiffs Summary Judgment). Given the Defendants' repeated obstructionist tactics, such action was warranted given the nature and importance of this case. This Court should not reward the Defendants' dilatory tactics by holding that the Plaintiffs should have played along with them. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 11 sanctions and for a Rule of Contempt to Issue Against Ira Magaziner and Motion for an Order That Facts Be Taken as 10
12 Established and Prohibiting and Striking Certain Claims, Defenses and Evidence should be granted. Respectfully submitted, KENT MASTERSON BROWN, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER J. SHAUGHNESSY, ESQ First National Building 167 West Main Street Lexington, Kentucky (606) (606) facsimile FRANK N. NORTHAM, ESQ. Bar No ALAN p. DYE, ESQ. Bar No WEBSTER, CHAMBERLAIN & BEAN 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C (202) COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC., AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM, and National LEGAL & POLICY CENTER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing plaintiffs' Combined Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Rule 11 sanctions and For a Rule of contempt to Issue Against Ira Magaziner and Notion for Order That Facts Be Taken as Established and prohibiting and striking Certain Claims, Defenses and Evidence has been served upon Defendants by hand -delivering a 11
13 copy of same to Defendants' counsel of record as follows: Hon. Elizabeth Pugh, Hon. Jeffrey Gutman, Hon. Robert S. Whitman, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, 901 E Street, MW., Room 952, Washington, D.C , on this the day of June, KENT MASTERSON BROWN C: \wpwin\clinton\repyto.mem
14 12
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC. ) etc., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs ) CIVIL ACTION NO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC. ) etc., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 93 0399 vs. ) JUDGE LAMBERTH HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC.,) AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR HEALTH ) CARE REFORM AND NATIONAL ) LEGAL & POLICY CENTER, ) Civil
More informationPlaintiffs ) CIVIL ACTION NO vs. ) JUDGE LAMBERTH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC. ) etc., et al., ) Plaintiffs ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-0399 vs. ) JUDGE LAMBERTH HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
More information1. 1 am Executive Assistant to Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC, ) AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR HEALTH ) CARE REFORM AND NATIONAL ) LEGAL & POLICY CENTER, ) Civil
More informationCase 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-00403-ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Sai, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No: 14-0403 (ESH) ) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION,
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 1:10-cv RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-02119-RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTHONY SHAFFER * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Civil Action No: 10-2119 (RMC) DEFENSE
More informationTITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SUBTITLE A: EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER n: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ISBE 23 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 475 TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES : EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION : DISPUTE RESOLUTION PART 475 CONTESTED CASES AND OTHER FORMAL HEARINGS
More informationMISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. No. 1822-CR00642 Div. 16 ERIC GREITENS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
More informationCase 1:16-cv RCL Document 16 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Case 1:16-cv-01606-RCL Document 16 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 12 PATRICIA SMITH and CHARLES WOODS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02010
More informationCase 1:10-cr RDB Document 32 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cr-00181-RDB Document 32 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * v. Criminal No.: RDB-10-0181 * THOMAS ANDREWS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA ) ) ) In re: ) Case No. 1:08-MC-9 HERBERT S. MONCIER, ESQ. ) BPR No. 1910 ) Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier ) ) MEMORANDUM & ORDER
More informationInvestigations and Enforcement
Investigations and Enforcement Los Angeles Administrative Code Sections 24.21 24.29 Last Revised August 14, 2017 Prepared by City Ethics Commission CEC Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, 24 th Floor
More informationANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
Bill Clinton, Answers to the Articles of Impeachment (January 11, 1999) The astounding economic growth achieved under the leadership of President Bill Clinton was overshadowed by allegations of sexual
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FREEDOM WATCH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nos. 15-5048 U.S. Department of State, et al.,
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE Proposed Recommendation No. 241 Proposed Rescission of Rule 4014, Promulgation of New Rules 4014.1, 4014.2 and 4014.3 Governing Request for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. CONSENT OF DEFENDANT SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Case 1:08-cv-02167-RJL Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission, 100 F. Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Case No. [redacted]
1 0 1 [attorney name redacted], Esq. (CSBN ///////////) ////////////// ////////////// ////////////// ////////////// Attorneys for Plaintiff GFH PROPERTIES, a California General Partnership Names have been
More informationCase 1:10-cv RMU Document 25 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:10-cv-02119-RMU Document 25 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTHONY SHAFFER, v. Plaintiff, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
More informationCh. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES GENERAL PROVISIONS
Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES Sec. 41.1. Scope. 41.2. Construction and application. 41.3. Definitions. 41.4. Amendments to regulation.
More informationCase 1:16-cv EGS Document 14 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Plaintiff,
Case 1:16-cv-00516-EGS Document 14 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 7 FREEDOM WATCH, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Civil Action
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 informationLOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B
124 NORTH CAROLINA ROBESON COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B Rule 1. Name. These rules shall
More informationTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION / Case No. ORDER SETTING JURY/NON JURY TRIALS, MEDIATION, NON BINDING ARBITRATION AND OPTIONAL PRETRIAL
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -GWF Document 127 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 10
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -GWF Document Filed 0// Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 Tel: (0) 0-0
More informationRULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Financial Services Tribunal Tribunal des services financiers RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL Ce document est également disponible en français TABLE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: KKC MEMORANDUM ORDER
Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC AT ~ Q V LESLIE G Y cl 7b~FR CLERK u
More information[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]
(Filed - April 3, 2008 - Effective August 1, 2008) Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings. Section 1. Jurisdiction. [UNCHANGED] Section 2. Grounds for discipline. [SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED] (c)
More informationTimothy J. McNamara appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 13-066 District Docket No. XIV-2010-0338E IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN CHARLES FEINSTEIN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: September 19,
More informationCase 1:10-cr LMB Document 182 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1647 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 182 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1647 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEFFREY
More informationTHE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C
THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 Reflecting proposed amendments in S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2009
More informationGUIDE TO DISCIPLINARY HEARING PROCEDURES
GUIDE TO DISCIPLINARY HEARING PROCEDURES All persons named as respondents in a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have the right to a hearing. The purpose
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DOMINIC J. RIGGIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2013 v Nos. 308587, 308588 & 310508 Macomb Circuit Court SHARON RIGGIO, LC Nos. 2007-005787-DO & 2009-000698-DO
More informationCase 3:07-cv TEH Document 32 Filed 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-TEH Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 PATRICK K. FAULKNER, COUNTY COUNSEL Stephen Raab, SBN 0 Civic Center Drive, Room San Rafael, CA 0 Tel.: () -, Fax: () - Attorney(s) for the Linda Daube
More informationStandards of Professional Courtesy and Civility for South Florida
Standards of Professional Courtesy and Civility for South Florida Preamble Attorneys are often retained to represent their clients in disputes or transactions. The practice of law is often an adversarial
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 1:17-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 1:16-cv KBJ Document 15 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-01827-KBJ Document 15 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JASON LEOPOLD and RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-cv-1827 (KBJ
More informationISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion
ISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion Opinion No. 13-05 May 2013 Subject: Digest: Client Fraud; Court Obligations; Withdrawal from Representation When a lawyer discovers that his or her client in
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 informationHAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47
HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Subchapter 1
More informationChicago False Claims Act
Chicago False Claims Act Chapter 1-21 False Statements 1-21-010 False Statements. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING October Term, A.D. 2016 In the Matter of Amendments to ) the Rules Governing the Commission on ) Judicial Conduct and Ethics ) ORDER AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING
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 informationSUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES
SUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES Justice: HON. THOMAS RADEMAKER Secretary: MARILYN McINTOSH Part Clerk: TRINA PAYNE Phone: (516) 493-3420 Courtroom: (516) 493-3423 Fax:
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: March 10, 2017 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM DR. JOEL MOSKOWITZ, an individual, Petitioner and Plaintiff,
More informationChapter UNFAIR TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION. Article Credit Service Organizations
Chapter 50 -- UNFAIR TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Article 11 --- Credit Service Organizations K.S.A. 50-1116. Kansas credit services organization act; citation; scope. (a) K.S.A. 50-1116 through 50-1135,
More informationDEFENDANT S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF GRAND JURY MINUTES
Case 1:04-cr-00156-RJA-JJM Document 99 Filed 11/10/09 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -vs- BHAVESH KAMDAR Defendant. INDICTMENT: 04-CR-156A
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Megonnell v. Infotech Solutions, Inc. et al Doc. 63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHRYN MEGONNELL, Plaintiff Civil Action No. 107-cv-02339 (Chief Judge Kane)
More informationCase 1:10-cv RMU Document 8 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00196-RMU Document 8 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:10-cv-0196-RMU NATIONAL
More informationCase 3:03-cv JCH Document 100 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendant.
Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 100 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SUSAN E. WOOD, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-986 (JCH) SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING
More informationThe Police Complaints Authority Act, 2003
The Police Complaints Authority Act, 2003 Part I Preliminary 1. This Act may be cited as the Police Complaints Authority Act, 2003. 2. This Act comes into operation on a date to be fixed by the President
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 informationBabin et al v. Breaux et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER
Babin et al v. Breaux et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IRA PAUL BABIN, ET AL VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 10-368-BAJ-DLD PAM BREAUX, ET AL motions: Background ORDER
More informationUnited States v. Biocompatibles, Inc. Criminal Case No.
U.S. Department of Justice Channing D. Phillips United States Attorney District of Columbia Judiciary Center 555 Fourth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 September 12, 2016 Richard L. Scheff, Esq. Montgomery
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/ :33 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------- JFK HOTEL OWNER, LLC, Index No.: 652364/2017 -XX - against - Plaintiff, HON. GERALD LEBOVITS Part 7 TOURHERO,
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ASUS COMPUTER INT L, v. Plaintiff, MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Defendant. SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL;
More informationIn the District Court of Appeal Second District of Florida
In the District Court of Appeal Second District of Florida CASE NO. 2D14-1906 (Lower Tribunal Case No. 10-009347-CI-33) WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellant, v. DEBORAH GRIFFIN, Appellee. INITIAL BRIEF OF
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More informationDodge County. 1) Rules of Decorum. (Sixth Judicial District)
Dodge County (Sixth Judicial District) 1. Rules of Decorum 2. Civil Practice 3. Rules of Criminal Procedure 4. Rules of Family Court Procedure 5. Filing of Papers by Electronic Filing and Facsimile Transmission
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 informationThe Florida Bar Inquiry/Complaint Form
The Florida Bar Inquiry/Complaint Form PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE Complainant Information.): Your Name: Organization: Address: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: E-mail: ACAP Reference No.: Does this
More informationCase 2:16-cv JAR-JPO Document 69 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:16-cv-02816-JAR-JPO Document 69 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, JOEL JEROME TUCKER, individually and as an officer
More informationDefense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely
Ethics Opinion 234 Defense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely Rule 3.3(a) prohibits the use of false testimony at trial. Rule 3.3(b) excepts from this prohibition false testimony
More informationCase: 1:02-cv Document #: 953 Filed: 02/11/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:21143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 953 Filed: 02/11/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:21143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER ADOPTING PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Issued January 23, 2012)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER11-1844-002 ORDER ADOPTING PROTECTIVE ORDER (Issued January 23, 2012) 1.
More informationCase 1:08-cv JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-01289-JEB Document 50 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DICK ANTHONY HELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 08-01289 (JEB v. DISTRICT
More informationWASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT. This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false claims act.
Added by Chapter 241, Laws 2012. Effective date June 7, 2012. RCW 74.66.005 Short title. WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false
More informationSession: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar. Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION
Session: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION In United Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel.
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, Case No. 1:03-CV-01793 (RBW v. ALBERTO GONZALES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants. REPLY MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 1:06-cv Document 44 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-02211 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DAVID GROOMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 06 C 2211 v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) AGENCY, et al., ) ) No. 3:14-cv-0171-HRH Defendants. ) ) O
More informationCase 1:09-cv RWR Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:09-cv-02014-RWR Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, JACQUES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Roger Hall, et al., Plaintiffs, Status Conference Scheduled for Aug. 3, 2007 v. Civil Action 04-00814 (HHK Central Intelligence Agency, ECF Defendant.
More informationCHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
TEXAS HUMAN RESOURCES CODE CHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 36.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Claim" means a written or electronically submitted request or
More informationCase 1:06-cv CKK Document 31 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01708-CKK Document 31 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. No. 06-1708 (CKK DEPARTMENT
More informationRhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
More informationO.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6. GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved.
O.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6 GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2015 Regular Session *** TITLE 23. EQUITY CHAPTER 3. EQUITABLE REMEDIES
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 NICOLE P. ERAMO, v. Plaintiff, ROLLING STONE, LLC, SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY, and WENNER MEDIA, LLC, Defendants.
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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued September 12, 2013 Decided October
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Filing # 45970766 E-Filed 09/01/2016 12:25:05 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC16-1323 v. Complainant, The Florida Bar File No. 2014-70,056 (11G) JOSE MARIA
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 informationWhen should this form be used?
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM 12.980(w), PETITION BY AFFIDAVIT FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A VIOLATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC,
More informationTHE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT, Arrangement of Sections PART II THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT, 2006 Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3 Act inconsistent with Constitution 4. Interpretation PART II THE POLICE COMPLAINTS
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 informationCase 1:18-cv JMF Document 379 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 379 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 7 October 15, 2018 The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
More information" FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL.,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, " FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL., Defendants. EASTERN DISTRICT OF F I L E 0 NEW YORK IN Off ice U. S. LD. 't CIVIL ACTION '152'9
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. 87,524 IN RE: FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT [October 17, 1996] PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar Traffic Court Rules Committee petitions this Court to approve its proposed amendments
More informationBoard -- Establishment and appointment -- Terms -- Officers -- Meetings -- Reimbursement.
63-24-101. Chapter definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Athletic injury" means any injury sustained by a person as a result of such person's participation in
More informationJanuary 13, VIA Board of Governors Washington State Bar Association. Dear Governors:
VIA EMAIL: eccl@wsba.org Board of Governors Washington State Bar Association Dear Governors: The King County Bar Association Judiciary and Litigation Committee is charged with reviewing the impact of proposed
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 informationCase 1:10-cv EGS Document 26 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 26 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERN MCKINLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 10-00420 (EGS) ) FEDERAL DEPOSIT
More informationFILED DEC Q--IL. DecemberJ, 2008
Case 1:08-cr-00369-RJL Document 9 Filed 12/15/08 Page 1 of 10 IL U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Fraud Section DecemberJ, 2008 Scott W. Muller, Esq. Angela T. Burgess, Esq. Davis Polk & Wardwell
More informationTexas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act
Tex. Hum. Res. Code 36.006 Page 1 36.001. [Expires September 1, 2015] Definitions Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (Tex. Hum. Res. Code 36.001 to 117) i In this chapter: (1) "Claim" means a written
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 informationCase 2:11-cv JTM-JCW Document 330 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00926-JTM-JCW Document 330 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LUTHER SCOTT, JR. and the LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
More information