Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McDowell v. Government of the District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


February 9, 2006

JUANITA MCDOWELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Spreadsheet and PD163s, Incorporating Points and Authorities [#81] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplement to to [sic] Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Spreadsheet and PD 163s [#82] is GRANTED. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Spreadsheet Required by this Court's Order Dated January 26, 2005 (Docket #63), Incorporating Points and Authorities [#89] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that The Defendants the District of Columbia and Shanita Williams' Motion for a Protective Order and/or Reimbursement of Costs [#94] is DENIED. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that The Defendants District of Columbia and Shanita Williams' Motion to Enlarge the Time in Which to File Their Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to their Motion for a Protective Order and Plaintiff's Memorandum Regarding Discovery [#99] is DENIED. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that The Defendants' District of Columbia and Shanita Williams' Motion to Enlarge the Time in Which to File Their Reply to Plaintiff's Oppositon [sic] to Memorandum Regarding Hearing [#100] is DENIED. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that The Defendants' District of Columbia and Shanita Williams' Motion to Enlarge the Time in Which to File Their Reply to Plaintiff's Oppostion [sic] to their Motion for a Protective Order [#101] is DENIED. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that, within five days of the date of this Order, defendants submit to the court and plaintiff, in writing, an updated projection as described on pages 21-22 of the Memorandum Opinion. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that, within 20 days of the date of this Order, plaintiff submit to the court a detailed report identifying the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that have been expended since February 3, 2003 in attempting to secure the PD 163's described in Exhibit 2 at 5, 15-16 to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant District of Columbia to Respond to Plaintiff's Document Production Requests, Incorporating Points and Authorities. Defendants will have 10 days within which to respond to the reasonableness of such fees. At that point, the court will decide which fees defendants will be required to reimburse.

SO ORDERED.

20060209

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.