Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2786 - Leadholm v. City of Commerce City, The et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2786 - Leadholm v. City of Commerce City, The et al
May 9, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants City of Commerce City and Troy Smith by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 05/09/2017. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to dismiss Defendant Troy Smith from the case. (mdave, ) Modified on 5/17/2017 to edit text (mdave, ).
August 8, 2017
PDF | More
WITHDRAWN ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 08/08/2017. The Court finds the following with respect to each record, as identified by its Bates-label page number: 0000052 - should not be redacted; 0000055 - the first redacted paragraph should not be redacted, but the secondparagraph is properly redacted; 0000056 - the first redacted line should be redacted, but the second line should not be redacted; 0000073 - all redactions are proper; 0000074 - all redactions are proper; 0000118 - all redactions are proper; and 0000190 - all redactions are proper. The Plaintiff shall produce copies of records on which redactions should be removed to the Defendants on or before 8/15/2017. (mdave, ) Modified on 2/27/2018 to withdraw per Amended Order at 158 (mdave, ).
August 8, 2017
PDF | More
AMENDED ORDER re: 100 ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 08/08/2017. The 100 ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW is withdrawn. The Court finds the following with respect to each record, as identified by its Bates-label page number: 0000052 - should not be redacted; 0000055 - the first redacted paragraph should not be redacted, but the secondparagraph is properly redacted; 0000056 - the first redacted line should be redacted, but the second line should not be redacted; 0000073 - all redactions are proper; 0000074 - all redactions are proper; 0000181 - should not be redacted; 0000188 - should not be redacted; and 0000190 - should not be redacted. Amended Order filed nunc pro tunc 8/8/2017. (mdave, )
September 1, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 99 Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 09/01/2017. At this time, the City will produce copies of the withheld documents only to the Court for in camera review on or before 9/11/2017 and, at the same time, will file a Notice of Submission on the public docket of this case. The document production may be in hard-copy or electronic format. Once the Court completes its review of the withheld documents, it will issue an order establishing whether any or all of the documents are protected by the deliberative process privilege as set forth herein. (mdave, )
November 16, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON MOTION TO RESTRICT granting in part and denying in part 122 Defendant Commerce City's Motion to Restrict by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/16/2017. Any re-submission of documents and/or motion to restrict shall occur on or before 12/1/2017. (mdave, )
December 4, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/04/2017. The Plaintiff shall produce copies of records on which redactions should be removed to the defendants on or before 12/11/2017. (mdave, )
May 17, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting 168 Motion to Dismiss Party by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/17/2018. Plaintiff's claims against the individual Defendants in this case are dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant City of Commerce City. (tsher, )