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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-8637 - Maplevale Farms, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-8637 - Maplevale Farms, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc. et al
August 7, 2017
PDF | More
Order Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 8/7/2017: For the reasons stated in the attached Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Foster Farms, LLC 405 is granted in part and denied in part. Mailed notice(lxs, )
September 28, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER concerning production of the Florida Attorney General documents. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 9/28/2017. Mailed notice(ber, )
November 13, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Order, Defendants' Motion to Stay Production Obligations Imposed by Plaintiffs' Subpoenas Served on Third Parties 499 is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 11/13/2017. Mailed notice (ber, )
November 20, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss, R. 279; R. 292 are denied except that Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Wisconsin are dismissed, such that Defendants' motion to dismiss the Indirect Plaintiffs' claim is granted in part. The Court has not addressed all of Defendants' arguments seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims. But the Court's opinion explains that at least one claim in each jurisdiction will proceed to discovery, with the exception of Wisconsin. Any state law claim the Court has addressed and dismissed, is dismissed without prejudice.To the extent Plaintiffs believe they can cure the deficiencies the Court has described with respect to their claims under Wisconsin law, Plaintiffs may file a joint motion for leave to amend by December 20, 2017, supported by a brief of no more than five pages explaining how the amendments would cure Plaintiffs' allegations. The proposed amended paragraphs of the complaints (not the entire complaints) should also be attached as an exhibit. No defendant should file a responding brief unless the Court so orders.To the extent it is necessary in order to streamline a trial or assess damages for the Court to address the additional state law claims not addressed in this opinion, or to reconsider dismissal of state law claims under the laws of jurisdictions for which other claims are proceeding, the Court will address those issues when appropriate. For now, however, the parties know which jurisdictions remain in play and which are out. That is a sufficient basis to conduct discovery. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 11/20/2017:Mailed notice(srn, )
December 22, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: Early this year, the parties issued initial sets of Rule 34 requests for production of documents. The parties have since responded and objected to each other's requests for production, and they met and conferred about those responses and objections. Then, in several status reports and letters, the parties identified and briefed certain disputes regarding the Rule 34 requests for production (and the responses and objections thereto). See [415 at 3352; 429; 434; 506; 507; 508; 522; 523; 524; 526]. During a telephonic status hearing held on December 11, 2017, the parties stated that a few of those disputes remain outstanding and are now ripe for ruling. In this Order, the Court rules on several of those disputes. See attached Order for further details. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 12/22/2017. Mailed notice(ber, )
February 21, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Order: For all of the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Order, the Court finds, at least at this time and on this record, that Defendants are not entitled to the extensive downstream discovery they now seek through the general and broad requests for production of documents that Defendants have served on DPPs and CIIPPs. The Court's ruling is limited to the requests for production, arguments, and record now before the Court. The Court is not now holding that all downstream discovery of any type or form would be beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That means this ruling is without prejudice to Defendants' ability to potentially better define what they are looking for from a particul the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 2/21/2018. Mailed notice(ber, )ar plaintiff group and the relevance of and need for that information, and it also is without prejudice to Plaintiffs' ability to better articulate the burden of producing that information. If this issue arises again or is rejuvenated, though, the parties must first meet and confer about any modification to Defendants' discovery requests and Plaintiffs' responses thereto before they bring the issue before the Court. See attached Memorandum Order for further details. Signed by
April 13, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER: Tyson Defendants' Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Non-Parties' Production of Documents as to Non-Custodians 725 is denied without prejudice. See attached Statement for further details. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 4/13/2018. Mailed notice (ber, )