Romano v. City of Hammond Police Department The
| 2:2006cv00342 |
| October 11, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Hammond Office |
| Paul R Cherry |
| Philip P Simon |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| 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
157
OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES AS MOOT 142 Motion to Amend and DEFERS ITS RULING ON 146 the Trustee's motion. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 11/3/2011. (tc)
|
|
Filing
102
OPINION AND ORDER denying 71 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 92 Rule 56 Motion to Strike and denying 100 Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 12/21/2010. (rmn)
|
|
Filing
69
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 48 Motion to Compel Witness to Comply with Subpoena and to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose. Court DENIES 50 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Reope n Discovery and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. Court DENIES as moot 56 Reply to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion to Strike These Motions. Court ORDERS Officer Ken Daniels to comply with subpoena by 8/20/2010. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Opinion and Order on Officer Daniels. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 8/5/2010. (tc)
|
|
Filing
65
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Strike Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and to Re-Open Discovery; and, Alternatively, Motion for Extension of Time to Reply. The Court GRANTS the Motion, but for re lief different than requested, and ORDERS that Defendant shall have seven (7) days, in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a) after the date of this Opinion and Order within which to file a reply brief in support of DE 50 . The Court STRIKES 54 Plaint iffs Reply to Defendants Motion for a Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion to Strike These Motions and DENIES 62 Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Latest Reply to the Defendants Motion for Protective Order Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 7/20/10. (kjp)
|
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: Romano v. City of Hammond Police Department The | |
|---|---|
| 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.
