Groome et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Plaintiff: Kimberly Groome and Chris Purcell
Defendant: Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Case Number: 4:2021mc09005
Filed: February 11, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: Stephen R Bough
Nature of Suit: Miscellaneous Case
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs-Relators' Motion to Compel Compliance with Third Party Subpoena (Doc. #1) is TRANSFERRED forthwith to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consideration by the Honorable Mark Kearney, in coordination with the related litigation, Case No. 17-cv-03523-MAK. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case once transfer is completed and terminate the pending motion. Signed on 2/17/2021 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Richard, Tracey)
February 17, 2021 Case electronically transferred to District of Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Houston, Kiambu)
February 16, 2021 Filing 4 Amended RETURN OF SERVICE (non cmp) re #3 Notice of filing. (Protzman, Andrew)
February 11, 2021 Filing 3 NOTICE of filing Declaration of Bruce Parke In Support of Pltfs MTC Compliance by Kimberly Groome, Chris Purcell re #1 MOTION to compel Compliance with 3rd Party Subpoena (Protzman, Andrew)
February 11, 2021 Filing 2 SUGGESTIONS in support re #1 MOTION to compel Compliance with 3rd Party Subpoena filed by Andrew B Protzman on behalf of Plaintiffs Kimberly Groome, Chris Purcell. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) #1 ) (Protzman, Andrew)
February 11, 2021 Filing 1 MOTION to compel Compliance with 3rd Party Subpoena filed by Andrew B Protzman on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/25/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Protzman, Andrew) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/18/2021: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Houston, Kiambu).
February 11, 2021 MISCELLANEOUS CASE INITIATED by Andrew B Protzman on behalf of All Plaintiffs. See motion immediately following this entry for details. This is a text entry only. No document is attached. Filing fee $49, receipt number AMOWDC-7281976.(Protzman, Andrew)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Groome et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kimberly Groome
Represented By: Andrew B Protzman
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 ]
Plaintiff: Chris Purcell
Represented By: Andrew B Protzman
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: Gilead Sciences, Inc.
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?