Simpson et al v. Lynch et al
| John Frederick Simpson |
| Loretta E. Lynch, Thomas E. Brandon, Juan F. Orellana and United States of America |
| 1:2015mc00297 |
| June 12, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Harrisburg Office |
| John E. Jones |
| Other |
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
37
MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the remainder of Simpsons motion to compel discovery with respect to 15 pages that were subject to limited redactions (Doc. 31 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on May 10, 2016. (kjn)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM ORDER - Petitioners motion to compel is DENIED in part. Themotion is denied to the extent it seeks to compel the Respondents to produceadditional documents aside from those which have already been furnished.However, the Court will withhold a final decision on the appropriateness of theRespondents redactions of the documents that have already been provided toSimpson. On or before May 26, 2016, the Respondents shall provide the Court with redacted and unredacted copies of the material that was previously produced to Simpson. Following review of that material, the Court will rule on Simpsons request that he be provided unredacted copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 27, 2016. (kjn)
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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.
