Gonzalez et al v. County of Suffolk et al
| Patricia Gonzalez and Jennifer Gonzalez |
| County of Suffolk, Suffolk Police Department, Richard Dormer, John Newton, James Scimone, William Judge, Christopher Talt, Joseph Link, Thomas Spota, John B. Collins and John and Jane Does 1-10 |
| 2:2009cv01023 |
| March 12, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Suffolk |
| E. Thomas Boyle |
| Thomas C. Platt |
| 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
105
ORDER granting 102 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione on 9/30/2022. (Mistry-Sehgal, Nikita)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER denying 34 Motion to Quash: The Court finds the County's motion to quash to be premature at this time since discovery has yet to be completed. If plaintiffs are unable to obtain the information they seek from other sources and still w ish to depose defendants Spota and Dormer after all fact discovery has been completed, the County may renew its request to have the deposition notices quashed. Accordingly, the County's motion to quash is denied without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of all fact discovery. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 11/10/2011. (Minerva, Deanna)
|
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.
