Rocky Mountain Wild Inc v. United States Forest Service et al
| Rocky Mountain Wild Inc |
| United States Forest Service and United States Department of Agriculture |
| 1:2015cv00127 |
| January 19, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Denver |
| William J. Martinez |
| Craig B. Shaffer |
| Freedom of Information Act |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 |
| None |
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
65
ORDER granting 62 Motion for Ruling Regarding Third Party Contractor Records. The parties are ORDERED to file their settlement documents on or before February 28, 2017. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 01/27/2017. (cthom, )
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER denying as moot 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 36 and 38 Motions for Summary Judgment as indicated in the attached Order. Status Report due by 4/25/2016. By Judge William J. Martinez on 01/29/2016. (athom, )
|
|
Filing
35
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 5/26/2015. Granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. The defendant shall produce documents by this Friday, May 29, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. and shall produce documents every Friday thereafter. FTR: Courtroom A-402. (amont, )
|
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 Colorado 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.
