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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-139 - CASTELINO v. ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-139 - CASTELINO v. ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
August 16, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING - This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 78) and the Plaintiff's objection to one of the Magistrate Judge's orders (Dkt. No. 86). The Court, being duly advised, DENIES the motion to disqualify and OVERRULES the Plaintiff's objection for the reasons set forth below (SEE ENTRY FOR DETAILS). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/16/2017. (DW)
September 8, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER - This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 91). The motion is fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, DENIES the motion. By making this baseless accusation of misconduct against Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and defense counsel, Mr. Thrasher has come perilously close to crossing the line from vigorous (if misguided) advocacy to sanctionable conduct. Mr. Thrasher is directed to review the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and the Seventh Circuit Standards of Professional Conduct, both of which govern the conduct of attorneys appearing before this Court, see Local Rule 83-5, and insure that he fully complies with those rules and standards in all future filings, communications, and actions during the course of this case (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/8/2017. (DW)
December 21, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL - For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 109 Castelino's motion to disqualify Reedy and her law firm from representing Rose-Hulman in this case. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion Under Local Rule 6-1(b)(1)(B)1 to Accept as Timely (Dkt. No. 127). (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/21/2017. (DW)
February 14, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - Mr. Castelino's § 144 Affidavit 165 addresses rulings made by Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and Judge Lawrence in this case which the Court finds were well-reasoned and thorough, and which do not reflect any personal bias or prejudice on the part of either judge. While Mr. Castelino attempts to spin his arguments to focus on how Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and Judge Lawrence reached their decisions, he essentially complains about the rulings that were reached. The purpose of a § 144 affidavit is not for another judge to review the propriety of earlier rulings in the case. Rather, Mr. Castelino can obtain a full review of the rulings about which he complains through an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Tepoel, 2008 WL 2273726 at *2 (denying defendant's disqualification request under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and noting that "defendant will have a complete chance to air his objections before the court of appeals...."). Because Mr. Castelino's § 144 Affidavit was untimely and since it did not set forth facts showing that either judge has a personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of Rose-Hulman, neither disqualification of Magistrate Judge Dinsmore nor Judge Lawrence is warranted( SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/14/2018. (DW)
February 28, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER denying 185 Second Motion to Amend an Order - Mr. Castelino has failed to satisfy the criteria for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and his Second Motion to Amend an Order, 185, is therefore DENIED. The Court notes that Mr. Castelino's motion is one of numerous attempts during this litigation to seek additional consideration of issues that the Court has already addressed - to get a second bite at the apple. Each of Mr. Castelino's second-chance motions results in an already overburdened Court expending judicial resources to rule on those motions. Mr. Castelino and his counsel are cautioned to pursue the merits of his case, and not collateral matters. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/28/2018. (RSF)
March 2, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULINGS - For the reasons set forth above, Castelino's objections set forth in Dkt. Nos. 141, 142, 143, and 144 are OVERRULED. Castelino's motions to stay, Dkt. Nos. 160 and [166,] are DENIED; his motion to stay found at Dkt. No. 159 was mooted by the filing of Dkt. No. 160. Castelino shall comply with the Magistrate Judge's order regarding his Facebook data, set forth at Dkt. No. 137 at 4, within seven days of the date of this Entry. That is, within seven days of the date of this Entry, Castelino shall either (1) produce the email link to the download of his Facebook data or (2) provide his Facebook username and password to a third party vendor chosen by Defendant to assist in the Facebook download process. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling the remainder of Castelino's deposition, which shall be resumed as soon as practicable and which shall be conducted pursuant to the parameters set forth by the Magistrate Judge in Dkt. No. 138. The failure to comply with this discovery order likely will result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which could include dismissal of this action (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/2/2018. (DW) Modified on 3/2/2018 (DW).
March 27, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 107] is DENIED. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's discovery and provide a privilege log that is fully compliant with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) on or before April 9, 2018. Plaintiff should be aware that the failure to produce an adequate log in response to this Order may result in a waiver of the privilege. Surgery Ctr. at 900 N. Michigan Ave., LLC v. Am. Physicians Assurance Corp., Inc., 317 F.R.D. 620, 631-32 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time [Dkt. 170] and Third Motion for Extension of Time to Indefinite [Dkt. 187] relating to deadlines for the production of Plaintiff's privilege log are DENIED AS MOOT (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/27/2018. (DW)
May 7, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY REGARDING PURPORTED NOTICE OF EXTENSION - The Clerk is directed to STRIKE 239, as well as 241, which is a reply in support of the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply that was filed belatedly without leave of court.SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/7/2018.(JRB)
May 30, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER denying 256 Motion to Strike - SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/30/2018. (JRB)
August 6, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DIRECTED AT KEVIN DORN [DKT. 263], PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ACCEPT REDACTED EXHIBITS AS TIMELY FILED [DKT. 265], AND ROSE-HULMAN'S MOTION TO AMEND [DKT. 274] - Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena Directed at Kevin Dorn [Dkt. 263], is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Redacted Exhibits as Timely Filed [Dkt. 265] is GRANTED, and Rose-Hulman's Motion to Amend [Dkt. 274] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to replace the incomplete Affidavit of Erik Hayes [Dkt. 246-8] with the complete affidavit [Dkt. 274-2]. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file, within 7 days of the date of this order, a redacted version of Dkt. 111-9 and Dkt. 265- 2, blacking out Plaintiff's mother's email address wherever it occurs. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/6/2018. (DMW)