Grief et al v. Nassau County et al
| Christopher Grief |
| John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, Nassau County and Sheriff Michael Sposato |
| 2:2015cv07240 |
| December 18, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Anne Y. Shields |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
160
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 138 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 155 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDERED that: A. As to Plaintiff's Rule 72 Objections to the No-Amend Order: 1. The Objections are OVERRULED; 2. The No-Amend Order is AF FIRMED; and 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 138) is DENIED; and B. As to Plaintiff's Rule 72 Objections to the No-Sanctions Order: 1. The Objections are OVERRULED; 2. The No-Sanctions Order is AFFIRMED; and 3. Plaintiff&# 039;s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 155) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption in this action as stated herein. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/2/2022. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER denying 126 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement: For the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum and Opinion, Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint a third time is denied. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 3/5/2021. (Minerva, Deanna)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER denying 79 Motion for Contempt; granting in part 79 Motion to compel, denying 81 Motion for Leave to File; granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. See attached Order for details. Additionally, discovery i s extended as follows: End date for fact discovery: 1/31/18; Deadline to exchange expert reports: 3/30/18; Deadline to complete expert depositions: 4/30/18; End date for all discovery: 5/31/18; Deadline to commence dispositive motion practice: 6/6/18; Deadline to file proposed joint pretrial order: 7/5/18.So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 11/16/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER denying 65 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Contempt (which the Court construes as a motion to compel). For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Defendants' motion for a protecti ve order, herein Docket No. 65 , is denied without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for contempt, which the Court construes as a motion to compel, herein Docket No. 69 , is decided as follows: (1) Parties are directed to confer with respect to the scope of the Sheriff Sposato's interrogatories. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, they shall file a joint letter setting forth their positions within ten (10) days of this order. The letter shall also set forth three suggested agreed upon dates for this Court to hold a telephone conference. (2) At this juncture, it is clear that Defense Counsel is working to provide the responses by Wednesday, October 4, 2017. The Court hereby extends the date for Defendants to provide such responses until October 4, 2017, but will not permit any further extension absent an indication that Counsel conferred in good faith. Any requests for extensions of time must comply with this Court's rules.(3) Defendants hav e waived any objections based upon privilege.(4) Defendants are now directed to provide a specific basis for each and every redaction by October 10, 2017.(5) If Parties are unable to agree to whether documents should be deemed confidential, t hey shall confer regarding each document by October 9, 2010. If after conferring Parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants have until October 13, 2010 to serve upon Plaintiff and the Court the documents in dispute, along with an explanatio n as to why each item submitted should be designated as confidential. The production of such documents shall be filed in a manner consistent with the procedure set forth in the Parties' confidentiality order. Plaintiff may respond no later than October 20, 2017. Defendants may reply no later than October 27, 2017. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 10/4/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Compel. See attached order for details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 8/18/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
|
|
Filing
49
DECISION & ORDER - Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff's objections to the Orders dated August 26, 2016, DE 18 , and October 13, 2016, DE 26 , are overruled in their entirety, and this matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Shields for th e continuation of discovery. Finally, the Court notes that the written objections filed by the Plaintiff contained numerous substantive footnotes, which are expressly prohibited by this Courts Individual Motion Practices. See Judge Spatt Indiv. R. II (A) and IV(B)(i). Although the Court, in its discretion, considered the footnotes in resolving these objections, any future papers that do not comply with this Courts rules will be returned to the filing party without consideration. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/30/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Court adheres to its August 26, 2016 decision, and denies the Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 10/13/2016. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
|
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 New York Eastern 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.
