Marchand v. Town of Hamilton et al
| Michael Marchand |
| Town of Hamilton, Richard Low, William Bowler, David Carey, Walter Cullen, Donna McKenna, Donald Dupray, Brian Shaw, Karen Wallace, Arthur Hatfield and Hamilton Police Benevolent Association, Inc. |
| 1:2009cv10433 |
| March 20, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Essex |
| Mark L. Wolf |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
119
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND; For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (Docket # 103) is ALLOWEDIN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in conformitywith this Or der, correcting typographical errors as well as certain factual inaccuracies whichcame to light in the course of discovery; and dismissing claims against Defendants Dupray, Shawand the Hamilton Police Benevolent Association. The Motion is otherwise D ENIED. TheMotion for Leave to File a Response (Docket # 115) is ALLOWED. re: 103 Motion for Leave to File Document 115 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Simeone, Maria)
|
|
Filing
92
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION;The Plaintiff has moved for clarification of several aspects of the Courts Order of March 26, 2010. (Docket # 85). The Motion is ALLOWED to the extent that the Court provides the clarification set forth below. granting 85 Motion for Clarification re 84 Order on Motion to Compel, (Simeone, Maria)
|
|
Filing
84
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered ; The Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Docket # 79) is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, without prejudice, as described supra. It is ORDERED that the Town shall review its document production in light of the foregoing rulings and shall supplement its document production accordingly within ten days.re: 79 Motion to Compel (Simeone, Maria) Modified on 3/26/2010 (Simeone, Maria).
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
