Cotterman v. Shelby County, et al.
| Joseph E Cotterman |
| Shelby County, Sheriff John R Lenhart, Deputy Sheriff James Frye and Detective Chris Brown |
| 3:2018cv00177 |
| May 22, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| SHELBY |
| Walter H. Rice |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
70
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY- The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the par ties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Parties intending to preserve this Courts jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 8/7/2020. (kma)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER AND ENTRY GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 44 )- Having carefully considered all of the foregoing, the undersigned GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs motion to compel and ORDERS as follows: 1.Def endants shall respond, forthwith, to Plaintiffs interrogatories requesting their identification of electronic devices issued or made available to Defendants and other identified individuals between January 1, 2016 and May 31, 2017; 2.Defendants shall respond, forthwith, to Plaintiffs interrogatories requesting that they identify the personal devices the named individual Defendants used between January 1,2016 and May 31, 2017, with the limitation that the named individual Defendants need only ide ntify those personal devices they actually used for work purposes at any time during this time period (i.e., they need only identify an electronic device is it was actually used for work purposes during the relevant time period); 3.Defendants need no t conduct a forensic search of the identified data storage devices and data storage spaces associated therewith, but may certainly do so if they so choose; 4.However, Defendants shall, forthwith, conduct reasonable searches of all the aforementioned identified devices and/or associated data storage spaces and, absent lawful objections to production (e.g., privilege, relevance, etc.), produce materials responsive to Plaintiffs Rule 34 requests; and 5.Defendants shall disclose to Plaintiff the details of how the aforementioned searches for ESI were conducted (e.g., identifying the search terms used, the storage medium searched,etc.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 6/25/19. (kma)
|
|
Filing
30
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER(Attachments: #(1) Attachment A Acknowledgement and Agreement to be Bound). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 2/4/2019. (jg)
|
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.
