Hornbuckle v. Adecco USA
Plaintiff: Susan L. Hornbuckle
Defendant: Adecco USA
Case Number: 1:2007cv00110
Filed: August 20, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Utah
Office: Northern Office
County: Weber
Presiding Judge: Tena Campbell
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 5, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel discovery and clarify 052309 Order, Emergency MOTION for Discovery per FRCP30(b)(6). Certain topics in the notice of deposition are stricken; one is modified; others are not permitted at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Nuffer on 10/5/09. (DN)
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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hornbuckle v. Adecco USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Susan L. Hornbuckle
Represented By: Victor A. Sipos
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: Adecco USA
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?