Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc v. John Tarwater et al
| Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc |
| DOES and John Tarwater |
| 8:2010cv01534 |
| October 12, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Marc L. Goldman |
| Andrew J. Guilford |
| Other Statutory Actions |
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
153
JUDGMENT by Judge Andrew J. Guilford, in favor of Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc against John Tarwater. Related to: REQUEST for Judgment 152 (twdb)
|
|
Filing
38
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman, re Stipulation for Protective Order 37 : IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Any Party producing material or information in this matter (Producing Party) may designate such material or information a s "Confidential" or "Attorneys Eyes Only" in which case such material or information shall be treated in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order. 15) All documents of any nature that are filed with the Court for any pur pose and that contain Confidential or Attorneys Eyes Only information shall be filed in sealed envelopes or other sealed containers that are marked with the caption of the litigation, that identify each document and thing contained therein and that bear a statement substantially in the following form: (See document for further details.) (rla)
|
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 California Central 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.
