CONVERTINO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
| 1:2004cv00236 |
| February 13, 2004 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Washington, DC Office |
| Royce C. Lamberth |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 Right to Privacy Act |
| 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
196
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting Motion 176 for Summary Judgment and denying Motion 187 for Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on March 24, 2011.(lcrcl3)
|
|
Filing
172
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 156 Motion To Strike Expert Designation and Report of Daniel J. Metcalfe. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 2/26/2010. (lcrcl4, )
|
|
Filing
167
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: plaintiff's Motion 116 to Compel and Jonathan Tukel's Motion 130 to Intervene. Separate orders issued this date. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 12/10/2009. (lcrcl2, )
|
|
Filing
154
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: plaintiff's Motion 128 for Protective Order. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 11/12/2009. (lcrcl2, )
|
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 District Of Columbia 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: CONVERTINO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
