Request from the High Court in Selangor, Malaysia at Shah Alam for Information From Google, Inc. Re Logeswaran A/L Nadaraja V. Google, Inc., Ref No. 24-1103-09/2014
United State of America |
3:2016mc80036 |
February 12, 2016 |
US District Court for the Northern District of California |
San Francisco Office |
San Francisco |
Laurel Beeler |
Other Statutory Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 U.S.C. Section 1782: Re 1 Request filed by United State of America. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 2/17/2016. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Request from the High Court in Selangor, Malaysia at Shah Alam for Information From Google, Inc. Re Logeswaran A/L Nadaraja V. Google, Inc., Ref No. 24-1103-09/2014 | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Movant: United State of America | |
Represented By: | Rebecca Ann Falk |
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.