Conforto v. Mabus et al
| Marie Conforto |
| Department of the Navy and Raymond E. Mabus |
| 3:2012cv01316 |
| June 1, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Barbara Lynn Major |
| Thomas J. Whelan |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
34
ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion To Compel The Videotaped Deposition Of The Plaintiff And The Production Of Documents And Granting Defendant's Request For Sanctions (Re Doc. 29 ): Defendant's motion for attorney's fees and the c ost of the videographer and court reporter is granted. Plaintiff's request that the Court order payment to the Court's non-appropriated fund is denied. Plaintiff and her counsel, Mr. Smee, are ordered to reimburse Defendant in the amount of $1,578.30 on or before 8/29/2014. Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Smee, is ordered to file a declaration verifying said payment no later than 9/5/2014. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of additional sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 8/8/2014. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER granting 24 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff Marie Conforto is ORDERED to submit to an mental examination on July21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at 3551 Front Street, San Diego, California 92103.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 7/10/2014. (av1)
|
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 Southern 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.
