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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-444 - Bianco v. County of Nassau et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-444 - Bianco v. County of Nassau et al
May 12, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Discovery. For the reasons set forth on the attached Order, Plaintiff's motion filed as Docket No. 34, is denied. Plaintiff is again reminded that she must familiarize herself with the Federal Rules, this Court's rules, and the Local Rules of this Court and make every effort to coordinate discovery with opposing counsel so that this matter can proceed. In particular the parties are directed to work together, via email or telephone, to comply with the Court's scheduling order, which was so ordered under Docket No. 30. Defense Counsel is directed to serve pro se Plaintiff with a copy of this Order and file proof of service no later than 5/15/17. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 5/12/2017. (Casalini, Rosalinde)
March 6, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting 69 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part 72 Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Plaintiff's motions appearing as Docket Entries 69 and 72 are disposed of as follows: (1) Plaintiff's motion to amend, appearing as Docket Entry No. 69, is granted. (2) Plaintiff's newly amended complaint, along with any corrections must be served and filed, in the manner described above, by 4/2/18. (3) Defendant shall respond to the Amended Complaint by 5/2/18. (4) Plaintiff may correct the errors in the exhibits attached to the proposed amended complaint. In filing her corrected exhibits, Plaintiff must provide the Clerk of the Court a flash drive containing each exhibit that contains a correction. Such corrections must be filed by 4/2/18. (5) Plaintiff must identify to Defendant the specific information she wishes to redact, and confer as to the proposed redactions. On 3/16/18, Plaintiff must file a letter with this Court outlining the specific redactions she wishes to make, and whether Defense Counsel has consented to the redactions. Upon receiving the letter the Court will make a determination as to whether such redactions shall be permitted. If Plaintiff's request is granted, she will be directed to provide the Clerk of the Court a flash drive containing each exhibit that contains a redacted document.(6) Discovery deadlines are extended as follows: Exchange of Expert reports completed by 4/9/18. Expert Depositions completed by 5/7/18. Final date to take the first step in dispositive Motion practice by 6/8/18. All discovery completed by 7/9/18. Submission of joint pre-trial order by 8/7/18.Defense Counsel is directed to serve pro se Plaintiff with a copy of this Order, and file proof of service no later than 3/8/18. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 3/6/2018. (Casalini, Rosalinde) (Main Document 73 replaced on 3/6/2018) (Imrie, Robert)
August 9, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting 103 Motion for Reconsideration: Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is granted, and upon reconsideration, the Court amends, clarifies, and adheres to its prior rulings in that (1) Plaintiffs motion to amend her Complaint is denied, with the exception that Massaro and Yao are deemed incorporated as defendants in the initial Complaint, which shall serve as the operative pleading herein; (2) Plaintiffs request to extend discovery is denied; and (3) Defendants motion for a protective order is granted. The parties are directed to file a joint pre-trial order, consistent with Judge Azracks Individual Rules, by September 10, 2018. Defendants' counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the pro se Plaintiff, and to file proof of service on the docket sheet, by August 14, 2018. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 8/9/2018. (Minerva, Deanna)
November 8, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Based upon Plaintiff's previous requests to dismiss this action, the Court hereby dismisses this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) without prejudice and without costs and attorney's fees to either party. This addresses Plaintiff's concern that the second sentence of Rule 41(a)(1)(B) precludes her from commencing a subsequent action because the Court is dismissing the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), not pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(B). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case and mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff Angela Bianco. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 11/8/2018. (c/m to pro se) (Ortiz, Grisel)