Legal Opinion
James v. Tilghman
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided March 29, 1999No. 2:91 CV 1136 JGMPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PRECLUDE INMATE INFORMANT IDENTITIES AND ON PLAINTIFF’S: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INMATE IDENTITIES AND DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE
MARGOLIS, United States Magistrate Judge.
The factual and procedural history behind this litigation is set forth in considerable detail in James v. Tilghman, 2:91 CV 1136(JGM), 1998 WL 849393 (D.Conn. Nov. 5,1998). Two motions currently are pending before the Court. First on March 8, 1999, defendants filed their Motion to Preclude Inmate Informant Identities, with brief in support. (Dkts. ## 150-151). On March…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Martin v. Valley National BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. BarnasonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012