Baird v. Office Depot
Plaintiff: Michael Baird
Defendant: Office Depot
Case Number: 4:2012cv06316
Filed: December 12, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: Donna M. Ryu
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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
August 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 107 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 106 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER FOR DISMISSAL filed by Office Depot. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/4/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)
June 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER Re 101 Parties' Joint Letter of June 10, 2014. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/11/2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2014)
June 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER DENYING re 96 Letter filed by Michael Baird to continue June 17, 2014 settlement conference. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 6/5/14. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2014)
June 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 73 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2014)
March 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 72 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 69 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER filed by Office Depot. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/21/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2014)
February 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 49 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014)
October 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING. Discovery Hearing set for 10/16/2013 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 10/3/2013. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)
July 31, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER RE: ATTENDANCE AT MEDIATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/31/2013. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2013)
July 24, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Re 27 28 Parties' Joint Letters of July 19, 2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2013)
July 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 26 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 25 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Continue Mediation Date to 8/30/13 filed by Office Depot. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/12/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)
February 21, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 12 STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/21/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2013)
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 California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Baird v. Office Depot
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Baird
Represented By: Richard M. Rogers
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: Office Depot
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?