John v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center et al
| Jillian John |
| Rutland Nursing Home and Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center |
| 1:2011cv03624 |
| July 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Roanne L. Mann |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| None |
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
118
ORDER granting 104 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/25/2014. (Ramos, Christopher)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion to Compel -- please see the attached document for details. I direct the defendant to provide a copy of the attached order to the plaintiff. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 5/14/2012. (Orenstein, James)
|
|
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 53 Motion to Compel -- I deny the plaintiff's motion to compel the production of further information about "official," oral, and written complaints made about her. See Docket Entry ("DE" ) 53. I heard the parties' arguments on the plaintiff's requests for such information, among other requests, at a conference on February 2, 2012, and ruled that the defendant's responses had been sufficient. See DE 22 (transcrip t) at 24. However, I provided the plaintiff with a further opportunity to raise the matter: "If you think that there's no sufficient information there, I think what you should do is send me copies of what they provided in response and why y ou think that doesn't answer the questions. Then I'll get a response from [the defendant's counsel] and we'll take it from there[.]" Id. In her latest motion, the plaintiff writes only that she is "dissatisfied&qu ot; with the defendant's production because "she believes that all of the information requested was/is important to her in proving her case." DE 53 at 1. The plaintiff provides no further explanation as to why the information the defen dant has produced to date concerning complaints against her is insufficient. I therefore adhere to my earlier ruling. To the extent the defendant's response to the motion to compel includes several new requests for relief on the defendant's behalf, see DE 54 at 1-4, I deny the requests without prejudice to the defendant's right to file a motion for such affirmative discovery relief as it deems appropriate. Any such motion should be styled as such on the docket, and should, with respect to each request for relief, comply with Rule III.A.1 of my individual practice requirements. The plaintiff shall respond in writing to any such new motion within three business days of its filing. I respectfully direct the defendant to provide a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to file proof of such service on the docket. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 5/2/2012. (Orenstein, James)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER denying 23 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision, 37 Motion for Disclosure. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, Kingsbrook's objections to Magistrate Judge Orenstein's February 2, 2012 Discovery Order ar e denied in their entirety, and the Discovery Order is affirmed. Kingsbrook shall serve a copy of the instant Memorandum and Order on Jillian John and file a certificate of service by April 2, 2012. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/30/2012. (Winterkorn, Margaret)
|
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 New York Eastern 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.
