Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc v. Hammond Professional Cleaning Services et al
| 2:2006cv00336 |
| October 6, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Hammond Office |
| Andrew P Rodovich |
| Torts to Land |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Torts to Land |
| Both |
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
115
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 59 Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Ansul Inc; DENYING 62 Motion for Protective Order; DENYING 105 Motion for Reconsideration; GRANTING 83 Motion to Compel Ansul Inc to Present Affiants for Depositions, Ans wer Interrogatories and Produce Materials; GRANTING 92 Motion to Compel Ansul Inc to Produce Documents. Carlsons request for the court to order costs and fees is GRANTED as to the final motion to compel. Ansul is ORDERED to comply with the above discovery requests within 30 days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 3/12/09. (mc)
|
|
Filing
103
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING without prejudice 65 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant Ansul Incorporated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 11/12/08. (mc)
|
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: Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc v. Hammond Professional Cleaning Services 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.
