Vukadinovich v. Griffith Public Sch, et al
| 2:2002cv00472 |
| November 26, 2002 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Hammond Office |
| Andrew P Rodovich |
| Joseph S Van Bokkelen |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Age) |
| 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
176
OPINION AND ORDER that this is the third of three orders regarding the Defendants' 129 Motion for Summary Judgment. This order relates to Plaintiff Brian Vukadinovich's claims against Defendants School City of Hammond and School City of Hammond Board of Trustees. The Court denies Vukadinovich's 166 Motion to Strike Hammond Defendants' Exhibit. The Court sets a trial scheduling teleconference for Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 2:00 pm. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 3/25/10. (sda)
|
|
Filing
156
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING plaintiff Brian Vukadinovich's 138 Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 12/18/08. (sda) Modified by adding the word opinion in text on 12/18/2008 (sda).
|
|
Filing
147
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, Brian Vukadinovich's 119 Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum to Non Parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 12/10/08. (sda)
|
|
Filing
144
OPINION AND ORDER that the Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories [DE 78] filed by the School Defendants on May 6, 2008, is GRANTED; the Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Limited Interrogatories [DE 94] filed by Vukadinovich on Augu st 11, 2008, is GRANTED; the Motion to Compel Adequate and Complete Responses to Requests for Admission as to Crown Point [DE 97] filed by Vukadinovich on August 26, 2008, is DENIED; the Motion to Compel Adequate and Complete Responses to Requests fo r Admission as to Hammond [DE 100] filed by Vukadinovich on August 26, 2008, is DENIED; the Motion to Compel Adequate and Complete Responses to Requests for Admission as to Griffith [DE 101] filed by Vukadinovich on August 26, 2008 is DENIED; the Mot ion to Compel Adequate and Complete Responses to Interrogatories as to Hammond [DE 102] filed by Vukadinovich on August 26, 2008, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; the Motion to Compel Adequate and Complete Responses to Interrogatories as to Gri ffith [DE 103] filed by Vukadinovich on August 26, 2008, is DENIED; the Motion to Compel Adequate and Complete Responses to Interrogatories as to Crown Point [DE 104] filed by Vukadinovich on August 26, 2008, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; th e Motion for a Protective Order [DE 96] filed by the School Defendants on August 20, 2008, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and the Motion for Continuance for Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 132] filed by Vukad inovich on November 5, 2008, is GRANTED. The parties are given ten (10) days following the issuance of this order in which to complete the discovery directed by this order. From that date, the plaintiff is given thirty (30) days in which to file his response to defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 12/5/08. (sda) Modified BY ADDING THE WORD OPINION TO TEXT on 12/5/2008 (sda).
|
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 Indiana 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: Vukadinovich v. Griffith Public Sch, 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.
