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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

15-7240 - Grief et al v. Nassau County et al

Download Files


Document in Context
15-7240 - Grief et al v. Nassau County et al
October 13, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Court adheres to its August 26, 2016 decision, and denies the Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 10/13/2016. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
March 30, 2017
PDF | More
DECISION & ORDER - Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff's objections to the Orders dated August 26, 2016, DE 18, and October 13, 2016, DE 26, are overruled in their entirety, and this matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Shields for the continuation of discovery. Finally, the Court notes that the written objections filed by the Plaintiff contained numerous substantive footnotes, which are expressly prohibited by this Courts Individual Motion Practices. See Judge Spatt Indiv. R. II(A) and IV(B)(i). Although the Court, in its discretion, considered the footnotes in resolving these objections, any future papers that do not comply with this Courts rules will be returned to the filing party without consideration. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/30/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
August 18, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Compel. See attached order for details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 8/18/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
October 4, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER denying 65 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Contempt (which the Court construes as a motion to compel). For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Defendants' motion for a protective order, herein Docket No. 65, is denied without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for contempt, which the Court construes as a motion to compel, herein Docket No. 69, is decided as follows: (1) Parties are directed to confer with respect to the scope of the Sheriff Sposato's interrogatories. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, they shall file a joint letter setting forth their positions within ten (10) days of this order. The letter shall also set forth three suggested agreed upon dates for this Court to hold a telephone conference. (2) At this juncture, it is clear that Defense Counsel is working to provide the responses by Wednesday, October 4, 2017. The Court hereby extends the date for Defendants to provide such responses until October 4, 2017, but will not permit any further extension absent an indication that Counsel conferred in good faith. Any requests for extensions of time must comply with this Court's rules.(3) Defendants have waived any objections based upon privilege.(4) Defendants are now directed to provide a specific basis for each and every redaction by October 10, 2017.(5) If Parties are unable to agree to whether documents should be deemed confidential, they shall confer regarding each document by October 9, 2010. If after conferring Parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants have until October 13, 2010 to serve upon Plaintiff and the Court the documents in dispute, along with an explanation as to why each item submitted should be designated as confidential. The production of such documents shall be filed in a manner consistent with the procedure set forth in the Parties' confidentiality order. Plaintiff may respond no later than October 20, 2017. Defendants may reply no later than October 27, 2017. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 10/4/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
November 16, 2017
PDF | More
otion practice: 6/6/18; Deadline to file proposed joint pretrial order: 7/5/18.So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 11/16/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)ORDER denying 79 Motion for Contempt; granting in part 79 Motion to compel, denying 81 Motion for Leave to File; granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. See attached Order for details. Additionally, discovery is extended as follows: End date for fact discovery: 1/31/18; Deadline to exchange expert reports: 3/30/18; Deadline to complete expert depositions: 4/30/18; End date for all discovery: 5/31/18; Deadline to commence dispositive m