Plaintiff Discovery Procedure

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

The Evaluation Form must be attached to your Project 3 submission. I will deduct .25 points if the Evaluation Form is not the first page of your submission. Please note that I deduct 2 points per day that a project is late.

Defendant SARAH MINER, owner, and operator of the Portola apartment complex, recently denied Plaintiff DARLAWILLIAMS, a former tenant, application to continue leasing her unit in the complex. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Defendant, alleging discrimination as the basis for her denial. The Plaintiff 's case against Defendant, however, is without merit. Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application because she received several noise complaints (Exhibit 1) throughout her tenancy, disrupting the peaceful residential community. Furthermore, Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application due to her failure to keep her unit in good condition; resulting in substantial damage to the unit and approximately $3,500 in repair

Joeli Rosario is and has been a resident of the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco. Her current address is: 1418, South Van Ness Avenue. The Connie’s Costume Shop is a sole proprietorship organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal office located at 1685 Bryant Street, San Francisco, CA 941103.

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

Plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims he was trying to enter his apartment building when was stopped by Det. Selwyn Fonrose and ordered to get on the floor. Plaintiff states Det. Fonrose forcibly put him on the ground and hit with a police radio. Plaintiff states he was arrested and taken to the precinct, then the hospital where he received staples to his head.

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-603 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS COUNTS I, II, VI AND VII PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-619.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Johnson further contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to exclude the Notice to Defendant and the OPD Form because the documents’ probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Specifically, Johnson asserts that the documents should have been excluded because they indicate that he had a pending criminal case, and that they indicate that he is indigent. The State, for its part, asserts that the documents were critical to establish that the contraband at issue here belonged to Johnson, and that any prejudice may have suffered did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value. We agree with the State.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer.

In initially serving 46 forty-six interrogatories, Plaintiffs once again opted for a shotgun approach to litigation—that is, serve or file now and ask questions about proper procedure later. Plaintiffs compound their reckless approach with their current Motion for Leave to Propound in Excess of Thirty Interrogatories, which once again, fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court rules and offers no basis to establish good cause for the additional interrogatories.

There are three cases highlighted in this snippet of a long and drawn out court battle. (Does the group agree that there are 3 separate cases?)

A mere violation of Defendant’s own policies, procedures, rules, regulations or State law, does not provide a basis for a due process violation.

“The cost-, resource-, and time-effectiveness of litigation in each forum” -- The Division has expressed its preference for the most “efficient and effective” forum due to its limited resources. In general, the Division finds that administrative hearings are more effective than federal court actions when speed is an issue. Efficiency is also an important consideration, so actions that involve multiple defendants that can be handled in a single proceeding in a federal court may be preferable. In addition, the Division notes that the limitations on or availability of discovery may dictate the appropriate

For the reasons stated in Part II(A), supra, Avpro enters this discovery dispute with a distinct advantage due to its status as a non-party. Independent of its status as a non-party, the electronic discovery that 50NL seeks from Avpro would otherwise be undiscoverable because Avpro’s need for the discovery does not outweigh the burden and cost of locating, retrieving, and producing the information. Md. Rule 2-402(b)(2). Moreover, the fact that 50NL’s need for the requested discovery is de minimis, the burden and costs imposed on Avpro are exorbitant, all in conjunction with the fact that Avpro is a non-party to the underlying litigation, all indicate that this Court should deny 50NL’s motion to compel.

state prosecutor. (Lippman, 2007) The purpose of the civil action is to compensate you with