Powell, et al v. Barrett, et al
| 1:2004cv01100 |
| April 21, 2004 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Richard W. Story |
| Civil Rights: Other |
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
300
ORDER granting 296 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Reply, and the Court has considered Plaintiffs' Reply [269-1]. The Court VACATES its March 3, 2011 Order 290 to the extent it granted Plaintiffs Rule 56(d) Motion. Upon reconsider ation, Plaintiffs Rule 56(d) Motion 282 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to Section II.A of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 269 no later than 21 days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall also file a response to Defendants Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [269-2] as set forth by Local Rule 56(b)(2)(a)(2). Defendant shall have 14 days from the date of Plaintiffs response to file a reply. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 8/8/11. (cem)
|
|
Filing
234
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 228 Motion for Protective Order on Deposition of Allen Middleton. The Court has determined that Defendant is entitled to sanctions for Plaintiff's Motion and is directed to submit a statement of costs to the Cou rt. Defendant's 216 Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT and Defendant's 229 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Alan Powell for Failure to Prosecute is GRANTED. The remaining discovery disputes addressed in the February 2 telephone conference are resolved as outline in Section III of this Order. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 2/4/2010. (gar)
|
|
Filing
199
ORDER re 195 Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, 196 Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. Discovery is authorized only on the subjects expressly stated in the Remand Order and on closely related ancillary subjects to the extent necessary to determine whether any of the named plaintiffs have been deprived of a clearly established constitutional right by being strip searched or overdetained while in the Defendant's custody. In addition, pursuant to the Court's oral ruling at t he March 26, 2009, scheduling conference, the parties may proceed with discovery regarding the named plaintiffs' overdetention claims. During the preliminary phase of factual development, initial disclosures shall be limited to an initial exchan ge of documents, as outlined. In addition to the described exchange of documents, there shall be a period of forty-five (45) days from the execution of the Scheduling Order within which the parties may serve written discovery, including interrogatori es and requests for production of documents, limited to the scope of discovery as ordered. The parties shall have an additional sixty (60) days after the conclusion of written discovery to conduct depositions. At the conclusion of this initial phase of discovery, the parties shall submit to the Court proposed stipulations of fact with citations to documents or deposition transcripts. Proposed stipulations shall be due twenty (20) days after conclusion of the deposition phase of discovery. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 7/14/09. (See order for specific details) (ekb)
|
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 Georgia 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: Powell, et al v. Barrett, 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.
