BARKER v. FLOYD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Indiana Southern District BARKER v. FLOYD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

BARKER v. FLOYD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

Plaintiff:	SARAH BARKER
Defendant:	FLOYD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
Case Number:	4:2010cv00026
Filed:	March 25, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	New Albany Office
Presiding Judge:	William G. Hussmann
Presiding Judge:	William G. Hussmann
Presiding Judge:	Richard L. Young
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
September 27, 2010	Filing 31 ORDER ON 21 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY DISCOVERY - The subpoena duces tecum qualifies as the type of "order of a court" necessary under Ind. Code 22-4-19-6(b). Therefore, IDWD must produce the information sought by Defen dant unless it has some other reason for objecting to compliance. Defendant is not entitled to sanctions at this time, as IDWD objected to the subpoena duces tecum in writing and also had a colorable objection to the subpoena duces tecum. Defendant shall maintain the information received as a part of this order in a confidential manner and shall not use it outside the scope of this litigation. Any personal identifiers with respect to Plaintiff shall be redacted when the items are produced. The items shall be destroyed or returned at the conclusion of this litigation, at the option of IDWD. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 9/27/2010. (LBT)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 27, 2010

Filing 31 ORDER ON 21 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY DISCOVERY - The subpoena duces tecum qualifies as the type of "order of a court" necessary under Ind. Code 22-4-19-6(b). Therefore, IDWD must produce the information sought by Defen dant unless it has some other reason for objecting to compliance. Defendant is not entitled to sanctions at this time, as IDWD objected to the subpoena duces tecum in writing and also had a colorable objection to the subpoena duces tecum. Defendant shall maintain the information received as a part of this order in a confidential manner and shall not use it outside the scope of this litigation. Any personal identifiers with respect to Plaintiff shall be redacted when the items are produced. The items shall be destroyed or returned at the conclusion of this litigation, at the option of IDWD. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 9/27/2010. (LBT)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BARKER v. FLOYD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: SARAH BARKER
Represented By:	Philip J. Gibbons, Jr.
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: FLOYD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
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?