Craig v. Rite Aid Corporation
Plaintiff: Shirley Craig
Defendant: Rite Aid Corporation
Case Number: 4:2008cv02317
Filed: December 29, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Labor: Fair Standards Office
County: Dauphin
Presiding Judge: John E. Jones
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 596 MEMORANDUM (eo)
March 30, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 530 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Dfts in camera motion for reconsideration is GRANTED as follows: 1. Dfts may withhold production of PRV 74-76, 216, 7291-7296, and 7308 because we find that these materials are subject to the a ttorney-client privilege. 2. Dfts may produce redacted copies of PRV 62-65, 7122, 69-70, 7284, 7285, and 7286, which may be redacted in the narrow manner described in Dfts in camera submission, in order to ensure that attorney-client confidential communications and information are not disclosed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on March 30, 2012. (kjn )
February 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 508 MEMORANDUM OPINION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court finds that Dfts have failed adequately to support their assertions of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection for the following documents, and therefore directs that these docu ments be produced within 20 days from the of this Order: PRV 000062 through PRV 000063, PRV 000064 through PRV 000066, PRV 000069 through PRV 000071, PRV 000192 through PRV 000193, PRV 000208 through PRV 000209, PRV 000223 through PRV 000286, PRV 000 290 through PRV 000291, PRV 000311 through PRV 000348, PRV 007120 through PRV 007123, PRV 007184, PRV 007185 through PRV 007186, PRV 007291 through PRV 007296, PRV 007308. 2. The Court finds that Dfts have adequately justified withholding the follow ing documents from disclosure on the basis of either the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or for the reasons otherwise explained in the within memorandum: PRV 000094 through PRV 000108, PRV 000127 through PRV 000129, PRV 000188 t hrough PRV 000189, PRV 000190 through PRV 000191, PRV 000197 through PRV 000198, PRV 000204 through PRV 000206, PRV 000220, PRV 000304, PRV 000349 through PRV 000358, PRV 000465 through PRV 000549, PRV 007918. 3. With respect to PRV74-76, PRV 00021 6, PRV 007291 through PRV007296, and PRV 007308 although we do not find that Dfts have adequately supported their assertion that this document is protected from disclosure either on the basis of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, b ecause it appears that the document might potentially be subject to protection from disclosure, we will permit Defendants a final opportunity to explain the basis for withholding this document from production. Accordingly, on or before February 27, 2012, Dfts may submit with the Court any additional information and evidentiary support that they may have in support of their contention that these records are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. SEE MEMO FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on February 9, 2012. (kjn )
January 31, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 505 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs motion to stay briefing on Defendants pre-close of discovery motion for decertification (Doc. 490 ) is GRANTED. The parties shall defer briefing the motion for decertification unti l after the close of fact discovery, at which time the Court will issue a briefing schedule, and the parties can comprehensively argue for and against decertification with the benefit of a more complete evidentiary record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 31, 2012. (kjn )
August 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 416 ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 1)The R&R 413 recommending that the Court grant in part Dfts' Motion for Partial SJ is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2)Dfts Motion for Partial SJ is GRANTED only to the extent indicated above with respect to the opt-in Pltfs listed; 3) The R&R 414 recommending that the Court approve the Stipulation of Dismissal is ADOPTED in its entirety; 4)The Stipulation of Dismissal 415 is APPROVED; & 5)The above-named opt-in Pltfs are DISMISSED from the action with prejudice. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 8/18/11. (dh)
July 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 402 MEMORANDUM ORDER - Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Dfts counsel are directed to provide to Pltfs counsel, at the inception of each Opt-In deposition, a copy of each non-bates labeled exhibit that may be used or introduced during that Opt-In Deponents deposition, provided, however, that Dfts shall not be obligated to provide advance production of any exhibit that might be used solely for purposes of impeachment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Dfts counsel shal l also provide Pltfs counsel with the barcode number of the box in which any non-bates labeled document was located, so that Pltfs can cross-check the exhibit against their index of barcoded boxes that they reviewed during discovery.IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED THAT Pltfs counsel shall not confer with an Opt-In Deponent about any exhibit revealed at the outset of that deponents deposition prior to the deposition, or during the deposition before the exhibit is used with the deponent, or during any breaks that may be taken during the deposition, without the agreement of Dfts counsel. SEE MEMO & ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on July 22, 2011. (kjn )
December 29, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 245 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 223 MOTION and Brief in Support of Defendants' Reliance on Self Critical Analysis Privilege filed by Rite Aid Corporation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on December 29, 2010. (kjn )
December 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 72 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion 22 for Conditional Certification is GRANTED. The parties shall adhere to the following deadlines: proposed Notice to the Collective Class Members shall be filed within 20 days of the date of this Order . If parties are unable to agree on a proposed notice, Plaintiff shall file a motion for approval of her proposed notice within 20 days of the deadline for the joint proposed notice and Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's proposed no tice within 20 days of service. All scheduling deadlines in the Court's March 30, 2009 Order 25 are vacated. The parties shall within 60 days file a joint stipulation proposing future scheduling deadlines. Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 12/9/09. (pw, )
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 Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Craig v. Rite Aid Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shirley Craig
Represented By: Peter D. Winebrake
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rite Aid Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?