Legal Opinion
Bancoult v. McNamara
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 30, 2003No. Civil Action No. 01-2629(RMU)PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Permit Discovery; Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motions for Enlargement of Time; Setting a Revised Briefing Schedule
URBINA, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs’ motions to permit discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) and for enlargements of time to respond to the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by defendants Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”) and Brown & Root, Inc. (“Brown & Root”) (collectively, “the defendants”). The plaintiffs are persons indigenous to the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Stella, Marie v. v. Mineta, Norman Y.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002
- Jerome D. Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & DunnerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Byrd v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999
- Kathleen Strang v. United States Arms Control and Disarmament AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Graham v. MukaseyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Radack v. United States Department of JusticeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Bancoult v. McNamaraDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Kakeh v. United Planning Organization, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Sheppard v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.