Minhas et al v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health
| Balbir Minhas and Midlands Gastroenterology |
| South Carolina Department of Mental Health |
| 3:2022cv02553 |
| August 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Sherri A Lydon |
| Thomas E Rogers |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Goodwyn, Tierney) |
| Filing 11 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Goodwyn, Tierney) |
| Filing 10 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Goodwyn, Tierney) |
| Filing 9 REPLY to Response to Motion re #5 Amended MOTION to Remand to State Court Response filed by Midlands Gastroenterology, Balbir Minhas. (Moore, Stephen) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE in Opposition re #5 Amended MOTION to Remand to State Court Response filed by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.Reply to Response to Motion due by 8/31/2022 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Emails)(Goodwyn, Tierney) |
Filing 7
CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 9/6/2022, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 10/3/2022, Rule 26 Report due by 9/20/2022, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 10/31/2022, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 11/28/2022, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 12/27/2022, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/17/2023, Discovery due by 2/13/2023, Motions due by 2/27/2023, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 4/24/2023, Jury Selection Deadline 5/15/2023, Mediation Due by 3/13/2023. Motions in limine must be filed no later than April 14, 2023. Written responses are due 7 days after the motion is filed.Parties shall furnish the Court pretrial briefs 7 days prior to the date set for jury selection. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 08/17/2022.(dsto)
|
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Goodwyn, Tierney) |
| Filing 5 Amended MOTION to Remand to State Court by Midlands Gastroenterology, Balbir Minhas. Response to Motion due by 8/24/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support Amended Memo of Support to Amended Motion to Remand)No proposed order.Motions referred to Thomas E Rogers, III.(Moore, Stephen) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Midlands Gastroenterology, Balbir Minhas. Response to Motion due by 8/23/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support Memo in Support of Motion to Remand)No proposed order.Motions referred to Thomas E Rogers, III.(Moore, Stephen) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(dsto, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Richland County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2022-CP-40-3373. (Filing fee $402 receipt number ASCDC-10626589), filed by South Carolina Department of Mental Health. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-State Court Documents, #2 Exhibit B-Notices)(dsto, ) |
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 South Carolina 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.
