Clauss Construction v. UChicago Argonne LLC et al
| Clauss Construction |
| Argonne National Laboratory and UChicago Argonne LLC |
| 1:2013cv05479 |
| July 31, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Thomas M. Durkin |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| 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
102
ORDER: Defendant UCArgonne, LLC's Motion to Automatically Exclude Clauss' Late Disclosed Potential Witness, Steve Tadlock, and for Further Relief Under Rule 37 65 is denied as moot in part and denied without prejudice in part. See attached Statement for further details. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 1/14/2015. Mailed notice (ber, )
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER: Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Clauss's Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 67 as supplemented by Defendant's Supplemental Motion for a Protective Order 70 is granted in part and denied in part. This case is set for a status hearing on 1/28/15 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of resetting a discovery close date. See attached Statement for details. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 1/13/2015. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Main Document 100 replaced on 1/13/2015) (ber, ).
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 10/20/2014. Mailed notice (ber, )
|
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 Illinois 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
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.
