United States of America et al v. Virginia College et al
| United States of America, Brenda Smith and Vickie Williams |
| Virginia College and Education Corporation of America |
| 2:2013cv00547 |
| July 31, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| Charles S. Coody |
| Myron H. Thompson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729 |
| 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
94
JUDGMENT: The court having been informed that this cause is now settled as to the claims of relator Vickie Williams, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that all claims of relator Vickie Williams are dismissed with prejudice and relato r Williams is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs and with leave to the parties, within 49 days, to stipulate to a different basis for dismissal or to stipulate to the entry of judgment instead of dismissal, and with leave to any par ty to file, within 49 days, a motion to have the dismissal set aside and the case reinstated or the settlement enforced, should the settlement not be consummated. It is further ORDERED that all outstanding motions are denied as moot as to relator Wil liams only.The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.This case is not closed. The claims of relator Brenda Smith remain pending. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/12/2015. (dmn, )
|
|
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the 50 motion to compel be and is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. With respect to Requests for Production # 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, and 24, these requests be and are hereby DENI ED without prejudice at this time; 2. With respect to Requests for Production # 5, 19, and 23, the motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED as moot; 3. With respect to Requests for Production # 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22, the motio n to compel be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the defendant shall produce, no later than September 18, 2015, responsive documents related to the students at issue as set out in the body of this memorandum opinion and order. 4. With respect to Request for Production # 20, the motion to compel be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the defendants shall produce any accreditation documents related to the last ACICS audit no later than September 18, 2015. In all other respects, the mot ion to compel Request for Production # 20 be and is hereby DENIED as moot. 5. With respect to Request for Production # 21, the motion to compel be and is hereby GRANTED, and the defendant shall produce, no later than September 18, 2015, 5 documents r esponsive to this request. 6. No later than September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs shall review the documents produced and confer with the defendants to determine whether any further discovery is necessary. 7. This matter be and is hereby SET for a heari ng and discovery conference at 2:00 p.m. on October 8, 2015, in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. 8. In all other respects, the 50 motion to compel be and is hereby DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 8/28/2015. (furn: Calendar, WS)(kh, )
|
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 Alabama Middle 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.
