Williams v. John Does 1-5

Williams v. John Does 1-5

Plaintiff:	Andrew Williams
Defendant:	John Does 1-5
Case Number:	1:2009cv02935
Filed:	October 22, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Office:	Atlanta Office
County:	Fulton
Presiding Judge:	Forrester
Nature of Suit:	Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 30, 2010	Filing 8 OPINION and ORDER granting Plaintiff's 6 Ex Parte MOTION to Conduct Limited Third Party Discovery. Plaintiff may immediately serve the third-party subpoenas appearing at Exhibits A & B to the instant motion and shall require the witnesses to respond within 20 days of the date of service. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 3/30/10. (bse)
December 8, 2009	Filing 5 OPINION and ORDER granting 2 EX PARTE MOTION for Leave to Conduct Limited Third-Party Discovery in Advance of Rule 26(F) Conference and Memorandum of Law In Support. Plaintiff may immediately serve the third-party subpoenas appearing at Exhibits E & F to the instant motion and shall require that the witnesses respond within 20 days of the date of service. Should Plaintiff be successful in identifying any of the John Does 1 through 5, he must next consider whether they are properly joined in a single action. In similar cases in the past, the court has required plaintiffs to bring individual actions where joinder is inappropriate, and it may well do so in this case. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 12/8/09. (bse)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 30, 2010

Filing 8 OPINION and ORDER granting Plaintiff's 6 Ex Parte MOTION to Conduct Limited Third Party Discovery. Plaintiff may immediately serve the third-party subpoenas appearing at Exhibits A & B to the instant motion and shall require the witnesses to respond within 20 days of the date of service. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 3/30/10. (bse)

December 8, 2009

Filing 5 OPINION and ORDER granting 2 EX PARTE MOTION for Leave to Conduct Limited Third-Party Discovery in Advance of Rule 26(F) Conference and Memorandum of Law In Support. Plaintiff may immediately serve the third-party subpoenas appearing at Exhibits E & F to the instant motion and shall require that the witnesses respond within 20 days of the date of service. Should Plaintiff be successful in identifying any of the John Does 1 through 5, he must next consider whether they are properly joined in a single action. In similar cases in the past, the court has required plaintiffs to bring individual actions where joinder is inappropriate, and it may well do so in this case. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 12/8/09. (bse)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Williams v. John Does 1-5
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Andrew Williams
Represented By:	Kelly O. Wallace
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 ]
Defendant: John Does 1-5
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.

Why Is My Information Online?