Sahu et al v. Union Carbide Corporation et al
Case Number: 1:2004cv08825
Filed: November 8, 2004
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: P.I.: Other Office
Presiding Judge: John F. Keenan
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 109 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to stay the time for opposing Defendants motion for summary judgment so that they may embark on yet a third round of discovery. For the reasons set forth within this Order, the motion is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for additional Rule 56(d) discovery and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions is denied. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 12/20/2010) (jfe)
September 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 100 OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Pitman's July 23, 2010 are overruled. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 9/30/2010) (jpo)
June 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 94 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Based on the present circumstances, the motion must be denied without prejudice unless or until Plaintiffs decide to file an amended complaint. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 6/16/2010) (js)
March 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 92 OPINION AND ORDER re: #98670 72 MOTION for Reargument re: 64 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Union Carbide Corporation, Warren Anderson, 67 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Babu Lal, Firdaus Bi, Shanti Bai, Kaval Ram, Jameela Bi, Bano Bi, Qam ar Sultan, Maksood Ahmed, Meenu Rawat, Janki Bai Sahu, Nusrat Jahan, Munee Bi, Pappu Singh. As neither party has demonstrated that the Court overlooked pertinent facts In issuing its September 22, 2009 discovery order, both motions for reconsideration are denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 3/15/2010) (tve) Modified on 3/16/2010 (ajc).
February 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 88 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #98544, that Plaintiffs' motion for reassignment or referral to a Magistrate Judge is denied. If Plaintiffs wish to file a motion to continue Fed. R. C i v. P. 15(a) as it existed prior to the December 1, 2009 amendment, the initial motion is due March 10, 2010; Defendants' response is due March 24, 2010; and Plaintiffs' reply is due April 9, 2010. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 2/11/10) (pl) Modified on 2/16/2010 (ajc).
September 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 64 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:#98055 Plaintiffs' motion under Rule 56 (f) is granted. Defendants' May 18, 2005, motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment is stayed until further discovery can be conducted. Nonetheless, for reasons alread y stated, all of Plaintiffs' discovery requests are denied save for the following: Document Requests Nos. 21-25, 28, and 31-34. Document Requests Nos. 21 and 25 are modified as discussed above. If Defendants make any claims of privilege, they ar e directed to provide a privilege log in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (5). Discovery can commence immediately and will close on December 15, Magistrate Judge Pitman will handle any disputes. A conference is set for December 21, 2009, at 10 a.m. to discuss the briefing schedule for the motion for summary judgment. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 9/22/09) (ae) Modified on 9/23/2009 (jab).
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sahu et al v. Union Carbide Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?