Montgomery v. Sanders et al
| Joel B Montgomery |
| Mary L Sanders, United States of America, General Dynamics, U.S. Department of Defense and Department of the U.S. Air Force |
| 3:2007cv00470 |
| December 20, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| GREENE |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 Tort Claim |
| Plaintiff |
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
181
DECISION AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents sought in their Fifth Request for Production is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/21/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
179
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/19/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
176
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Court committed a manifest error of law in denying their Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, their Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/18/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
161
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - On this date the Court received the classified documents at issue in this case for in camera inspection. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/30/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
144
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE BY FEBRUARY 1, 2012, AND REPORTING STATUS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/1/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
136
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER DECISION AND ORDER SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/23/2011. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
134
DECISION AND ORDER SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/20/2011. (mdf1)
|
|
Filing
132
DECISION AND ORDER granting 106 Motion to Compel Depositions; granting 107 Motion to Compel Production of Documents; denying 109 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint; denying 123 Motion for Leave to Serve Discovery; denying 124 Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs; and granting in part and denying in part 130 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/7/2011. (mdf1)
|
|
Filing
104
DECISION AND ORDER - An oral hearing was held by telephone on May 20, 2011. As a result of that conference call, the United States agreed to produce a Vaughn index of withheld documents which shall be filed not later than June 20, 2011. A motion for protective order, either agreed upon or competing versions, shall likewise be filed with the Court not later than June 20, 2011. The discovery cut-off in this case is amended to November 30, 2011. The dispositive motion deadline in the case is exten ded to January 20, 2012. The trial of this case will be re-set after decision on any dispositive motions or after the dispositive motion deadline if no such motions are filed. No further extensions of discovery will be granted on the basis of any discovery dispute which has not been framed for court decision.Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/6/2011. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Payment of Attorney Fees and Expenses (Doc. No. 99). In its Response (Doc. No. 100), the United States has recognized its obligation to pay the amount ordered by the Court without awaiting final judgment in the case and Plaintiff, in his Reply (Doc. No. 101) acknowledges that the Government has taken necessary affirmative steps in that direction, although payment is not complete. Given that status of the matter, there is no need for the Court to determine its authority to make an order compelling payment. If payment is not received by June 1, 2011, Plaintiff is free to seek reconsideration. The present Motion is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/17/2011. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
92
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES - Plaintiff is hereby awarded $19,993.95 in fees and expenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/31/2011. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
73
DECISION AND ORDER - This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 70). To the extent it sought discovery which had not been produced at the time it was filed (July 6, 2010) but has now been produced, the Motion to Compel is moot. However, as Plaintiff correctly points out, late production of discovery does not shield a producing party from sanctions for the late production; to that extent the Motion is not moot. Plaintiff may submit an application for an award of expenses and attorney fees for filing the Second Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/30/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT RULE 26(f0 REPORT - Counsel are ordered to confer and prepare a supplement to their Rule 26(f) Report which lists: 1. All discovery completed to date. 2. Additional discovery contemplated by either party with a schedule for its co mpletion. 3. Any outstanding unresolved discovery issues and counsel's plan for resolving them or placing them before the Court for resolution. 4. Counsels' requested dates for discovery cut-off, dispositive motion deadline, and trial, plus any other dates which require re-scheduling.The Rule 26(f) supplement shall be filed not later than February 1, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/18/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
66
AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULING ORDER - This case is before the Court sua sponte upon its referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Given that referral, the reasons which led the Court to deny previous motions to re-set the discovery cut-off are now moo t. Accordingly, the Court withdraws is prior order denying the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 64 and notation order) and re-sets deadlines in the case subject to several contingencies as follows: 1. Discovery cut-off March 1, 2010 and 2. Dispositive motions deadline April 1, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 10/6/2009. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
59
DECISION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION - Upon the Motion, the Court has reconsidered its Order and re-examined the Motion to Compel and again finds it is not signed by Attorney Henry. Because Mr. Henry, the trial attorney, did not sign the Motion to Compel, it remains, upon reconsideration, STRICKEN. Plaintiffs are perfectly free to re-file in proper form and to request expedited consideration of their Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/31/2009. (gh1, )
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO COMPEL - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 53). Additional motion papers are found at Doc. Nos. 55 and 56. Upon examination, the Court finds that both the Motion to Compel and the R eply Memorandum in support are not signed by the trial attorney in this case, R. Mark Henry. All papers filed on behalf of a party in this Court are to be signed by that party's trial attorney. S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.5(a). Although Mr. Podlaski has been admitted pro hac vice, such admission does not entitle him to act as Plaintiff's trial attorney in this case. S. D. Ohio Civ. R.83.4(a). Accordingly, the Motion to Compel and the Reply Memorandum in Support are stricken. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/24/2009. (kopf1, )
|
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 Ohio 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.
