Shao et al v. Beta Pharma, Inc. et al
| Shanshan Shao, Hongliang Chu, Qian Liu, Song Lu and Xinshan Kang |
| Beta Pharma, Inc. and Don Zhang |
| 3:2014cv01177 |
| August 13, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Charles S. Haight |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
201
ORDER (see attached) regarding Plaintiffs' 200 Letter Motion/Request for In-Camera Review Pursuant to Protective Order, dated April 12, 2018. Permission to submit the confidential documents referenced by this Letter Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must file any supplemental memo in support of their 196 Motion for Modification of Protective Order on or before Thursday, May 3, 2018. Defendants may file opposing papers to that Motion, if so advised, no later than Monday, May 14, 2018, and Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, no later than Monday, May 21, 2018. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 19, 2018. (Pskowski, R.)
|
|
Filing
163
OMNIBUS RULING (see attached). The Court HOLDS that subject matter jurisdiction exists by reason of the complete diversity of the parties, resolving the Court's 156 Memorandum and Order on Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and reinstating a nd resolving the four pending motions earlier deferred: the Plaintiffs' 110 Motion to Enforce Subpoenas is GRANTED IN PART, as to tax returns and related documents for the years 2009 and subsequent, and DENIED IN PART, WITHOUT PREJUDICE , as to tax returns and related documents for years prior to 2009; the Defendants' 113 Motion for Clarification is DENIED; the Plaintiffs' 114 Motion for Reconsideration to Modify the Court's 109 Ruling is GR ANTED; and the Defendants' 133 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. This resolution lifts the stay placed on all case deadlines by the Court's 156 Memorandum and Order, and the most recent Scheduling Order is now reinstated. If De fendants wish to assert the attorney-client privilege to prevent disclosure of any documents otherwise falling within the referenced subpoenas, they must expressly make that claim and comply with the particulars of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A) and L. Civ. R. 26(e), not later than Friday, June 30, 2017. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on May 4, 2017. (Pskowski, R.)
|
|
Filing
156
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (see attached) directing all parties to submit affidavits establishing their citizenship for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes on or before Friday, April 14, 2017. All case deadlines a re stayed pending the Court's review of the affidavits. If, after reviewing the affidavits, the Court determines that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction, the action may proceed. Otherwise, in the absence of such jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the action. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on March 27, 2017. (Dorais, L.)
|
|
Filing
109
RULING (see attached) denying Defendants' [Doc. 101 ] Motion to Quash Subpoenas and denying as moot Defendants' [Doc. 108 ] Motion for Scheduling of a Conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on January 26, 2016. (Overbey, C.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
