Hammond et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation et al
| Tom Hammond, William H. Wicks and Linda Young |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and John Does 1-20 |
| 1:2008cv06060 |
| July 2, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| P.I.: Other Office |
| New York |
| Richard M. Berman |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
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
67
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:#97657 Plaintiffs' request for further information regarding internal and external investigations related to the incident at issue in this case is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendants have asserted that this informa tion is covered by the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs argue that despite the protections, they should be provided with certain of these documents because they meet the "substantial need" and "undue hardship" tests. The Court f inds that Plaintiffs have failed to show that they have not been provided with the factual information underlying any investigation by Defendants. Moreover, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have had a fair opportunity to conduct their own investigation. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 6/22/09) (tro) Modified on 6/23/2009 (eef).
|
|
Filing
43
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: For the reasons set forth on the record at the conference before the Court on April 14, 2009, Defendant's motion to dismiss [#26] is dismissed without prejudice. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 4/14/2009) (jpo)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #97357, therefore, Plaintiffs MAY NOT ask BNY employees their Social Security numbers during the course of their deposition. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 3/31/09) (cd) Modified on 4/2/2009 (mro).
|
|
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER #97101: It is hereby ordered the Defendants Produce the material requested by Plaintiffs. The materials shall be designed Confidential- Attorneys-Eyes Only. While Plaintiffs specifically requested an amendment to the Confidentialit y Order in place in this case, upon review, the Court concludes that the Confidentiality Order does not preclude this production, but merely provides that counsel may mask (redact) material deemed privilege. Sensitive Personal Information of non-named Plaintiffs.. (Stipulation and Order Concerning Confidentiality of Documents and Materials (Docket No. 34) (emphasis added).) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 2/19/09) (mme) Modified on 2/20/2009 (mro).
|
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.
