Baranski v. United States of America
Plaintiff: Keith Byron Baranski
Defendant: United States of America
Case Number: 4:2011cv00123
Filed: January 18, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge: Charles A. Shaw
Nature of Suit: Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS 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
July 19, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 340 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Keith Byron Baranski's Motion to Amend Findings and Alter or Amend the Judgment of Dismissal, or For New Trial is DENIED in all respects. [Doc. 326] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/19/2016. (MRC)
March 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 324 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts I, II, III and V of petitioner Keith Byron Baranski's Third Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis are DISMISSED. [Doc. 187 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count IV of petitioner Keith Byron Baranski's Third Verified Amended Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis is DISMISSED, having been withdrawn. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States of America's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 237 ] An appropriate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 3/31/16. (JWD)
November 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 277 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Strike is DENIED. [Doc. 268] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Surresponse is DENIED for failure to state why addit ional briefing is needed and because the Court finds the surresponse was filed in an attempt to avoid the Court's prior orders. [Doc. 269] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitati on and Motion for Leave to File Surresponse Under Seal are DENIED as moot. [Doc. 270, 271] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall delete from the record petitioner's Surresponse and all attachments thereto, filed under seal. [Doc. 272]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 11/30/2015. (MRC)
November 18, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 259 ORDER -{see Order for complete details}...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for all future filings under seal, petitioner shall comply fully with the Courts Administrative Procedures, and shall contemporaneously serve a copy of sealed documents or motions to opposing counsel by means other than electronic notice through CM/ECF.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 11/18/2015. (MRC)
July 21, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 222 ORDER -..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall mark pages 84-86 of the transcript of ATF Agent Michael Johnsons transcript as Privileged Subject to Protective Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall provide a copy of this Order to Midwest Litigation Services (MLS), the court reporting service that transcribed ATF Agent Michael Johnsons deposition taken September 16, 2014, and direct MLS to (1) mark pages 84-86 of Agent Johnsons deposition transcript (in ea ch format in which MLS retains the transcript) as Privileged Subject to Protective Order; (2) return to petitioners counsel for destruction any physical copies of Protected Document No. 32 (marked as Exhibit 11 to Agent Johnsons deposition) that MLS may have; and (3) delete or destroy any digital copies MLS may have of Protected Document No. 32 (marked as Exhibit 11 to Agent Johnsons deposition). Petitioners counsel shall file a declaration within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Or der that details his compliance with this paragraph. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if either party determines that any other deposition transcript in this case mentions a Protected Document or information gained therefrom, or that a Protected Document was marked as an exhibit to a deposition, counsel for that party shall immediately provide a copy of this Order to the court reporting service that transcribed the deposition and direct it to comply with the terms of the foregoing paragra ph as to the transcript pages and/or Protected Documents at issue. Counsel shall file a declaration with the Court that details compliance with this Order within fourteen (14) days of providing the Order to the court reporting service. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall comply with the terms of this Order and the Memorandum and Order of June 3, 2015, with respect to any Protected Documents that are in his possession or come into his possession, from whatever source. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all persons or entities to whom a copy of this Order is delivered shall comply with its terms and shall refrain from any disclosure or use of the informationthey have gained as a result of disclosure to them of the Protected Documents. Response to Court due by 8/4/2015.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/21/2015. (MRC)
June 3, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 214 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the government has waived any privileges associated with the documents listed on its privilege log, Government Exhibit I. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to Documents 2, 4, 32, 36-38, 42, 43-49, and 55- 58 listed on Government Exhibit I, petitioner shall (1) either return all copies of these documents to the U.S. Attorneys Office, or destroy them; (2) take reasonable steps to retrieve any copies of the documents that petitioner provided to anyone else; and (3) not use or disclose any information gained from these documents for any purpose. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, petitioner shall file a notice with the Court, signed under penalty of perjury , that details his compliance with the foregoing order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall submit a proposed protective order with respect to disclosure of the ATF Kansas City confidential informant file on James Carmi within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, and shall attempt to obtain petitioner's approval of the form of the proposed order prior to submitting it to the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall produce the confidential informant file on James Carmi to petitioner within five (5) days of the issuance of a protective order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/3/15. (KXS)
December 19, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 194 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Baranski's Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that the ATF's St. Louis Field Office III shall conduct a thorough review of all documents and records within its c ontrol to determine if any documents or records exist that are responsive to petitioner's subpoena duces tecum and the list of sixty-five items attached to petitioner's Motion to Compel, in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Any s uch documents or records shall be produced within thirty (30) days of this date of this Order. [Doc. 157] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the ATF's St. Louis Field Office III claimsthat any otherwise responsive documents or recor ds are subject to privilege, including the documents and records ATF-STL has previously identified as privileged, it shall file a privilege log in accordance with Rule 45(d)(2)(A) within thirty days of the date of this Order, or the Court will deem any privilege waived. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Baranski's Motion for Sanctions, construed as a motion for contempt under Rule 45(g), is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 157] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 12/19/2014. (MRC)
October 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 177 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.......IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is GRANTED; the motion to dismiss for abuse of the writ is GRANTED as to the claims in Counts III, IV, VII, VIII and IX and the portions of Count X based on Counts III, IV, VII, VIII and IX, and DENIED in all other respects. {Doc. 146] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to file a third amended petition for writ of error coram nobis is GRANTED, but petitioner shall omit from his amended petition those claims which the Court has held constitute abuse of the writ or are second or successive. [Doc. 169] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the third amended petition for writ of error coram nobis shall be filed by October 22, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by November 3, 2014 the parties shall file a joint memorandum setting forth proposed deadlines for the close of discovery, for the filing of any dispositive motions, and proposed dates for the evidentiary hearing. An appropriate order of partial dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. ( Response to Court due by 10/22/2014.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 10/7/2014. (MRC)
August 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 152 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the government's Motion to Continue Stay of Discovery and to Continue Filing of Joint Memorandum is DENIED as to a further stay of discovery and GRANTED as to a continuance for the filing of a joint memorandum. [Doc. 147 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Continue Filing of Joint Memorandum is GRANTED. [Doc. 151 ] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/4/14. (KXS)
June 17, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 144 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Raoul Williams, filed by movants United States Probation Office for the Eastern District of Missouri and Raoul Williams, is DENIED. [Doc. 129] IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED that former U. S. Probation Officer Mr. Raoul Williams shall appear for deposition in this matter and answer petitioner's questions on the topics set forth in the Touhy statement attached to the deposition subpoena previously issued to him. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/17/2014. (NCL)
December 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 122 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Baranskis Motion for Leave of Court to Filein Pro Se Capacity the Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis is DENIED.[Doc. 120]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Baranskis M otion for Leave of Court to Filean Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis is DENIED. [Doc. 121]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall retain the proposed amended petition and all exhibits thereto until Monday, Janua ry 6, 2014. If Mr. Baranski wishes to have these documents returned to him, he must contact the Clerk and provide return postage costs, or pick up the pleading, prior to that date. After January 6, 2014, the Clerk shall discard the proposed amended petition and exhibits by shredding them, without further order of the Court. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 12/5/2013. (RAK)
February 27, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 103 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Baranskis Motion to Release Pre-Trial Services and U.S. Probation Office Records of James M. Carmi is GRANTED as set forth herein. [Doc. 94]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Pretrial Servic es Office and U.S. Probation Office for the Eastern District of Missouri shall, by March 6, 2013, produce and deliver to thechambers of the undersigned all records in their possession related to James M. Carmi that concern, or arguably or potentially may concern: 1) an agreement by James M. Carmi to cooperate with the government; 2) a reduction in sentence for Carmi pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 or Rule 35; 3) perjury by Carmi; 4) suborning of perjury by Carmi; or 5) employment, potential em ployment, or attempted employment of Carmi by the United States as a confidential informant.The foregoing includes documents prepared by, and sent to, Susan McGuire, William Brown, or any other therapist who has treated Carmi. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat the Clerk of the Court shall transmit a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Chief Pretrial Services Officer and the Chief Probation Officer of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Pretrial Services Office and U.S. Probation Office may each provide the Court, along with the requested documents, an ex parte written statement detailing any information they believe should be redacted from specific documents if the Court determines, following in camera review, that the documents should be produced. Any such written statement shall include the reasons underlying each proposed redaction. ( Response to Court due by 3/6/2013.) Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 2/27/13. (JWJ)
May 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 78 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Baranski's first Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED, and that movant Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, and Glass, P.C., shall pay the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($1,716.00) to attorney Saeid Shafizadeh, and the sum of One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($180.00) to attorney Richard Gardiner, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, and file a Notice with the Court stating that it has done so. [Doc. 44] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Baranski's second Motion for Attorney's Fees is DENIED. [Doc. 54] Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 5/25/2012. (KSM)
March 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that non-party movant Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass, P.C. shall file a certificate of service no later than March 6, 2012, stating that Document 43 has been served on petitioner by means other than CM/ECF. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners Motion to Unseal Response Docket No. 43 and for Attorneys Fees is DENIED as to the motion to unseal Document 43. [Doc. 44]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners Motion to Unseal Response Docket No. 43 and for Attorneys Fees remains pending as to the issue of attorneys fees. [Doc. 44]. Response to Court due by 3/6/2012. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 3/5/2012. (KSM)
February 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 42 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court reserves ruling on non-party Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass, P.C.'s Motion to Quash Keith Byron Baranski's Subpoena of November 26, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass P.C. shall produce a privilege log that details the nature of each document or communication responsive to Baranski's supboena, without revealing information that is itself privileged, that is sufficient to enable Baranski and the Court to assess the validity of the privilege claim as to each document or communication. The privilege log shall be produced within fourteen (14) days of this order. Response to Court due by 2/23/2012. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 2/9/2012. (KSM)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Baranski v. United States of America
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Keith Byron Baranski
Represented By: Richard E. Gardiner
Represented By: Saeid Shafizadeh
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: United States of America
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?