Schanfield v. Sojitz Corporation of America et al
| Arnold Schanfield |
| Sojitz Corporation of America, Jun Matsumoto and Takashi Tsukada |
| 1:2007cv09716 |
| November 1, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Colleen McMahon |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| 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
115
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON ALL OF SCA'S COUNTERCLAIMS; GRANTING SUMMARY J UDGMENT TO SCA ON ITS COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION: The parties will be notified of a trial date for the few issues that remain open in this case. As soon as they are notified, they will have ten days to submit in limine motions. In limine motions that seek to reargue points decided in this opinion will be summarily denied. Each side will have ten days to respond to any in limine motions made by the other; no reply papers will be ac cepted. The Court will deliver its decision on the in limine motions at or before the final pre-trial conference. At the final pre-trial conference, the parties MUST appear by trial counsel. Trial counsel must be ready to argue objections to any prop osed exhibit offered by the other side; exhibits will be admitted or not admitted at the final pre-trial conference. Trial counsel must also commit to which witnesses he/she will call at trial; the Court will take steps to insure that the trial of th is very narrow case does not consume more than four trial days. Finally, the Court notes that the parties submitted their motion papers under seal, allegedly because they contained confidential information. As almost always happens in these actions, the parties presented the Court early on with a protective order to protect against the dissemination of confidential information, and a very great deal of information that probably does not qualify as truly confidential has no doubt been made subjec t to that order. I can see absolutely nothing in this opinion that qualifies as confidential. It is my intent to file this opinion publicly unless, within three days, I receive from a party a letter (1) identifying what in the opinion constitutes con fidential information, and (2) explaining with specificity why that information is really confidential. The Court reserves the right to conclude that the supposedly "confidential" material is in fact not deserving of protection, and to file the opinion publicly if there is no adequate showing of a need to file under seal. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/29/2009) (jpo)
|
|
Filing
114
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON ALL OF SCA'S COUNTERCLAIMS; GRANTING SUMMARY J UDGMENT TO SCA ON ITS COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFF; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION....The parties will be notified of a trial date for the few issues that remain open in this case. As soon as they are notified, they will have ten days to submit in limine motions, and as further set forth in this document....This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/29/09) Copies sent by Chambers(cd)
|
|
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion for Discovery. For the reasons further set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the motion is granted with respect to certain documents but denied with respect to others. Where a motion for an order compelling discovery is granted inpart and denied in part, the court may, "after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a) (5) (C). The court, however, e njoys "broad discretion in determining appropriate Rule 37 sanctions" in light of its "firsthand familiarity with all of the pertinent circumstances of the particular case." Here, no apportionment is appropriate given the mixed re sults of the motion and the history of discovery disputes in which neither side has consistently prevailed. Both requests for costs and fees are therefore denied. To summarize, the plaintiff shall disclose e-mails numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 46, 60 , 62, 89, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 1ll, 137, and 138 on his privilege log. All other contested e-mails are protected by the work product doctrine and shall not be produced. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees associated with this motion. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 3/6/09) (tro) Copies Mailed By Chambers.
|
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 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.
