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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-10094 - USA v. McLellan et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-10094 - USA v. McLellan et al
November 15, 2017
PDF | More
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered; The Motions for Leave to File Replies (Doc. Nos. 240 and 243) are ALLOWED.After consideration of the issues raised by the appeal, the appeal (Doc. No. 215) is ALLOWED, Judge Bowlers order (Doc. No. 207) is VACATED, and the Motion to Partially Proceed Ex Parte (Doc. No. 198) is ALLOWED. Any motion to quash shall be filed by November 22, 2017 with a response by December 4. The governments partial opposition is OVERULED and the application (Doc. No. 234-2) is ALLOWED without prejudice to any a motion to quash by State Street. McLellans Motion for Hearing (Doc. No. 221) is DENIED (Simeone, Maria)
February 27, 2018
PDF | More
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Doc. Nos. 135, 136, 139 and 148) entered denying 135 Motion to Dismiss as to Ross McLellan (1); denying 136 Motion to Dismiss as to Ross McLellan (1); denying 139 Motion to Dismiss as to Ross McLellan (1); denying 148 Motion to Dismiss as to Ross McLellan (1) (Montes, Mariliz)
February 28, 2018
PDF | More
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER on Defendant's Motion to Sever Count 6 entered. 292 Defendant's Motion to Sever Count 6 as to Ross McLellan (1) is DENIED. (Montes, Mariliz)
May 15, 2018
PDF | More
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON MOTIONS entered. re 328 Motion for Order 275 Motion for order 276 Motion as to Ross McLellan (1) (Simeone, Maria) By May 23, 2018, the parties shall file a status report stating their joint or separate positions regarding: (1) whether the Court ought admit any portions of the deposition transcripts of the two persons deposed in the civil case who are outside the reach of the Court's subpoena power and decline to appear by video conference at trial; and (2) whether the Court should inquire of State Street as to the particulars of its efforts to secure the testimony of one or more of the three proposed lawyer witnesses. Modified on 5/15/2018 (Montes, Mariliz).