Williams v. Fox
Plaintiff: Kent Williams
Defendant: Fox
Case Number: 1:2016cv00143
Filed: April 7, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office: Boise - Southern Office
County: Ada - Southern
Presiding Judge: Candy W. Dale
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 120 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Foxs Motion for Summary Judgement (Dkt. 107 ) is GRANTED. 2. Williams Request for Pretrial Assistance (Dkt. 116 ) is DISMISSED as moot. 3. Williams Request for Status (Dkt. 117 ) is DISMISSED as MO OT. 4. Williams Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 119 ) is DENIED. 5. The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
September 28, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 115 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 102 ) to respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 97 ) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs Mot ion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 96 ) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs request that the Court respond to [Plaintiffs] motions in a more timely manner (Dkt. 114 ) is DENIED as MOOT. 5. No party may file anything further in this case until the Court is sues adecision on Defendants motion for summary judgment, which is ripe foradjudication. Violations of this or any other Court Order may lead tosanctions, up to and including dismissal or default judgment. If the Courtdetermines that further briefing or a hearing on the motion is warranted, itwill issue a sua sponte order accordingly. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
January 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 1. Defendants Motion to Compel (Dkt. 74 ) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Dkt. 75 ) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent set forth above.3. Defendants Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 79 ) is GRANTED IN PART... 4. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 61 ) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling after the parties have disclosed the information required by this Order and within 120 days after entry of this Order. 5. Defendants Motion for Summ ary Judgment (Dkt. 77 ) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling after the parties have disclosed the information required by this Order and within 120 days after entry of this Order. 6. Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions and Request to Consider Late Di sclosed Evidence (Dkt. 80 ) is GRANTED IN PART... Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs) Modified on 1/11/2018 to reflect mailed to updated address at Dkt. 93 (cjs).
March 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Foxs Motion to Stay this case pending the outcome of Plaintiffs interlocutory appeal (Dkt. 33 ) is MOOT, as that appeal has been dismissed. Plaintiffs request for permission to resubmit his First Amended Complaint, construed as a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 42 ) is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint is found at Dkt. 43 . To maintain clarity in the record, the Clerk of Court shall add to the docket, in the lead case, the separa te Complaint in the consolidated case (Dkt. 3 in No. 1:16-cv-00478-EJL), noting the date it was originally submitted to the Court. Plaintiffs Request for Sanctions, Motion to Strike, and Seal Discovery from the Record (Dkt. 46 ) is MOOT, as the subs tantive motion to which it pertains (Dkt. 41 ) has already been denied as moot. Plaintiffs Motion for Additional Interrogatories/Motion to Strike from the Record Discovery Submitted by Defendant (Dkt. 51 ) is DENIED. Plaintiffs objections to the Or der of Reassignment and Consolidation,construed as motions to sever (Dkt. 54 in Case No. 1:16-cv-00143-EJL & Dkt. 8 in Case No. 1:16-cv-00478-EJL) are DENIED for the reasons statedin the Order of Reassignment and Consolidation. (See Dkt. 53 .) Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. Associated Cases: 1:16-cv-00143-EJL, 1:16-cv-00478-EJL(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs) Modified on 3/8/2017 (cjs).
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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Williams v. Fox
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kent Williams
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: Fox
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?