Hightower v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
Plaintiff: John C. Hightower
Defendant: Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2015cv01284
Filed: April 21, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office: New Orleans Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: Jane Triche Milazzo
Presiding Judge: Joseph C. Wilkinson
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER AND REASONS: Ultimately, plaintiff's arguments merely rehash the evidence, legal theories and arguments that he raised in his motion to compel. He has not carried his burden to show any manifest error of law or fact or manifest injustice t hat would justify the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In its opposition memorandum, defendant requested an award of attorney's fees for what it char acterizes as a legally and factually baseless motion for reconsideration. This request is denied. Based on the current record and the necessarily flexible nature of proportionality analysis, I find that plaintiff's motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.(mmv)
April 27, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 28 Motion to Compel as set forth in document. IT IS ORDERED that defendant must produce all internal audit reports regarding Don Bohn Ford for the relevant time period in its possession, custo dy or control and must supplement its response to state that it has done so or that it has no such materials, if that is the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all materials produced in response to this request are confidential and subject to the prote ctive order. Finally, it appears from the copy of defendant's answers to interrogatories provided to me that the answers are not verified under oath, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(B), (3) and (5). Accordingly, defendant is HEREBY ORDER ED, no later than May 11, 2016, to provide the required verification of interrogatory answers, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34, and to provide all responsive, nonprivileged documents within the scope of this order to plaintiff.Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 4/27/2016. (my)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hightower v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John C. Hightower
Represented By: James Louis Arruebarrena
Represented By: G. Patrick Hand, III
Represented By: G. Patrick Hand, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
Represented By: Michelle I. Anderson
Represented By: Timothy H. Scott
Represented By: Lawrence Joseph Sorohan, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?