Niemic v. Clark et al
| Keith Niemic |
| Kurt A. Demoura, Robert Silva, Steve Rawlinson, David Malone, Stephen Oliveira, Terrence Faugere, Harold Clark, Luis Spencer, Allison Hallet, Peter Pepe, Thomas Dickhaut, Derrick Samuels and Mike Delahoyde |
| 1:2011cv10863 |
| May 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Norfolk |
| Leo T. Sorokin |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
52
Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered re: 49 Motion to direct defendants to answer the complaint, and 50 Motion to Amend scheduling order. The Motion seeking a further answer is DENIED. See attached. The Motion to amend the schedule is ALLOWED as unopposed, and the deadlines are extended as follows: written discovery requests by 2/15/13; responses to written discovery by 4/15/13; depositions by 6/17/13; summary judgment motions by 8/16/13 with responses by 9/16/13. (Robinson, Amy)
|
|
Filing
25
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER entered. After a reviewing the Parties' written submissions, this court hereby orders that Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement 23 is ALLOWED for the reasons stated therein. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants and Motion for a More Definite Statement 24 is thus DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
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.
