Fountain, Jr. d/b/a Eastbrook Apartments v. Zurich American Insurance Company, a New York corporation et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|December 3, 2014
ORDER by US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank: GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 32 Motion to Compel; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 52 Motion for Protective Order; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART AND DISMISSING AS MOOT IN PART [ 73] and 110 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART AND DISMISSING AS MOOT IN PART 75 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; DISMISSING AS MOOT 81 Motion for Protective Order; DISMISSING AS MOOT [8 9] Motion to Compel; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART AND DISMISSING AS MOOT IN PART 106 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 12/3/14. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. (O'Brien, C.)
|November 10, 2014
ORDER regarding 26 Motion for Protective Order; 32 Motion to Compel Better Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents; (2) For a Ruling of Defendant's Waiver of Attorney Privilege and/or Work Product Protec tion or Confidentiality Over Improperly Withheld Documents; and For Leave to Exceed Page Limitations; 48 Motion for Protective Order and To Enforce Confidentiality Agreement; and, 24 Motion to Quash - Defendant's Motion to Quash 24 is DISMISSED as moot and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 26 is DISMISSED as moot. Having carefully considered the parties arguments concerning Plaintiff's motion, the court finds that a temporary, non-prejudicial protective order is warranted in this matter. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of his objections to the protective order proposed by Defendants. The parties shall confer concerning Plaintiff's objections to the proposed protective order and , on or before November 17, 2014, submit a joint proposed protective order for the court's consideration. No later than two weeks after the court's entry of a protective order, Defendants shall review their responses to those interrogatorie s and production requests that are the subject of Plaintiff's motion to compel and make such further or supplemental response as may be appropriate. With regard to any discovery requests to which Defendants assert there are no responsive docume nts or all responsive documents have been previously produced, Defendants shall respond by so stating. Additionally, if in response to any discovery requests related to interrogatories #21 and #24, Defendants object on the basis that disclosure of t he requested information would be unduly burdensome or expensive, Defendants shall provide the court with an affidavit or declaration from an appropriate official within Defendants' information technology department explaining the burden or expense involved. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 11/7/2014. (Tripp, S.)
|November 7, 2014
ORDER granting 92 Motion to Remove Inadvertently filed Confidential Documents from Court file and CM/ECF Docket and granting 96 Amended Motion to Seal Document - Plaintiff is directed to file a corrected Motion to Compel, together with any exhib its to be included in the record. Upon filing of the corrected motion, the clerk shall remove the image located at DE #73 and make an entry stating that the document has been refiled with a reference to the appropriate docket entry. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 11/7/2014. (Tripp, S.)
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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?