alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 224.21 Discovery. ( a ) The following types of discovery are authorized: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admissions of the authenticity of any relevant document or the truth of any relevant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purpose of this section and § 224.22 and § 224.23, the term “documents” includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless mutually agreed to by the parties, discovery is available only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) *Motions for discovery.* ( 1 ) A party seeking discovery may file a motion with the ALJ. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
( 2 ) Within ten days of service a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 224.24.
( 3 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for discovery only if he finds that the discovery sought: ( i ) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
( ii ) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
( iii ) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
( iv ) Does not seek privileged information.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
( 5 ) The ALJ may grant discovery subject to a protective order under § 224.24.
( e ) *Deposition.* ( 1 ) If a motion for deposition is granted, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will be held.
( 2 ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed in § 224.8.
( 3 ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( 4 ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
( f ) Each party shall bear its own costs of discovery.
Case 3:08-cv-02376-MHP Document 169 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 19.7 Spousal agreements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Theodore *1119Harris, Appellant.

Judgment, County Court, Broome County, rendered February 3, 1977, affirmed (see *People v Coleman,*42 NY2d 837). Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
______________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY EXISTING SCHEDULING ORDER 

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARGORIE BURGESS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

OFFICER TERRY LILES, in his 

individual capacity, CHIEF MURL 

HARPHAM, in his official capacity, 

PROBATION OFFICER STEVE 

SCHAENING, in his individual capacity, 

PROBATION OFFICER PETRINA 

FENNELL, in her individual capacity, 

PROBATION OFFICER ANDREW 

McLAUGHLIN, in his individual capacity, 

THE CITY OF EUREKA, THE COUNTY 

OF HUMBOLDT, THE EUREKA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND DOES 

1-10, INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO.: CV 08-4029-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

EXISTING SCHEDULING ORDER 

 The Court having considered the Joint Stipulation to Modify the Existing 

Scheduling Order submitted by counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendants, hereby 

extends the dates as requested in the Joint Stipulation as follows: 

Case 3:08-cv-04029-SI Document 45 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2
______________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY EXISTING SCHEDULING ORDER 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Description Present Cutoff New Date

General Non-Expert Discovery Cut Off 4/16/10 8/13/10 

Designation of Experts 4/30/10 9/10/10 

Expert Discovery Cut Off 5/28/10 10/29/10 

File Dispositive Motions 5/14/10 12/3/10 

Opposition to Dispositive Motion 5/28/10 12/17/10 

Reply to Dispositive Motion 6/4/10 12/24/10 

Hearing on Dispositive Motions 6/18/10 1/7/11 @ 9:00 a.m. 

Pre-Trial Papers Due 5/14/10 2/15/11 

Pre-Trial Conference 8/3/10 3/1/11 @ 3:30 p.m.

Trial 8/16/10 3/14/11 @ 8:30 a.m.

Mandatory Settlement 

Conference 6/23/10 1/5/11 – 2/3/11 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________ _____________________________________ 

 HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-04029-SI Document 45 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3132. Cooperation of Federal agencies

In accordance with applicable laws and subject to the availability of appropriations, each Federal agency shall exercise its powers, duties and functions, and shall cooperate with the Secretary, in such manner as will assist the Secretary in carrying out this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title I, §102, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3601.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3132, Pub. L. 89–136, title I, §102, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 554; Pub. L. 93–423, §2, Sept. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1158; Pub. L. 94–487, title I, §104, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2331; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695; Pub. L. 96–506, §1(1), Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2745, authorized grants for operation of health projects, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
Case 3:07-mj-70022-MRGD Document 5 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 2Case 3:07-mj-70022-MRGD Document 5 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Newmark Posner & Mitchell Inc., Appellant, v Swift & Watson Realty Inc., Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 313]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about June 7, 2000, which, in an action for breach of contract, denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied upon claims of nonperformance, sufficiently demonstrating a meritorious defense. The delay in the corporate defendant’s appearance by an attorney was minimal and plaintiff failed to show any prejudice attributable to defendant’s original, and timely, *pro se*appearance *(see, Johnson v Scores Entertainment,*268 AD2d 306, citing *Munoz v Quarex, Inc.,*236 AD2d 595). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.
#### Gagandeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75453.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 16, 2007.

Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Levings, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The court has received and reviewed the parties’ responses to the court’s December 1, 2006 order.

The questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); *see also El Rescate legal Services, Inc. v. EOIR,*959 F.2d 742, 752 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §§3351 to 3356. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Appropriations for this subchapter have not been authorized for fiscal years commencing after June 30, 1972.

Section 3351, Pub. L. 89–754, title IX, §901, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1282, set out the declaration of purpose for this subchapter.

Section 3352, Pub. L. 89–754, title IX, §902, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1283, related to grant authority, scope of assistance, and terms and conditions of programs under this subchapter.

Section 3353, Pub. L. 89–754, title IX, §903, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1283, related to amounts and restrictions on grants under this subchapter.

Section 3354, Pub. L. 89–754, title IX, §904, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1283, related to cooperation of Federal departments and agencies with States, and coordination by Secretary of urban information and technical assistance programs under this subchapter.

Section 3355, Pub. L. 89–754, title IX, §905, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1283, defined "State", "Secretary", and "small communities".

Section 3356, Pub. L. 89–754, title IX, §906, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 90–448, title XVII, §1703, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 603; Pub. L. 91–152, title III, §308, Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 394; Pub. L. 91–609, title III, §305, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1781, authorized appropriations.
### §300q–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §203(a)(1), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 635

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §1621, as added Jan. 4, 1975, Pub. L. 93–641, §4, 88 Stat. 2265, related to allocation among States of total amount of principal, criteria, availability of unobligated amounts, and reallotments.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 204 of Pub. L. 96–79, set out as an Effective Date of 1979 Amendment note under section 300q of this title.
§ 171.23 Request to amend or correct records. ( a ) An individual has the right to request that the Department amend a record pertaining to the individual that the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.
( b ) Requests to amend records must be in writing and mailed or delivered to A/GIS/IPS or OIG at the address given in § 171.4, with ATTENTION: PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT REQUEST written on the envelope. A/GIS/IPS or OIG will coordinate the review of the request with the appropriate offices under its purview. The Department will require verification of personal identity as provided in § 171.22(c) before it will initiate action to amend a record. Amendment requests should contain, at a minimum, identifying information needed to locate the record in question, a description of the specific correction requested, and an explanation of why the existing record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request must be signed, and the requester's signature must be either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. The requester should submit as much pertinent documentation, other information, and explanation as possible to support the request for amendment.
( c ) All requests for amendments to records shall be acknowledged within 10 working days.
( d ) In reviewing a record in response to a request to amend, the Department shall review the record to determine if it is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
( e ) If the Department agrees with an individual's request to amend a record, it shall: ( 1 ) Advise the individual in writing of its decision;
( 2 ) Amend the record accordingly; and
( 3 ) If an accounting of disclosure has been made, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance.
( f ) If the Department denies an individual's request to amend a record, it shall advise the individual in writing of its decision and the reason for the refusal, and the procedures for the individual to request further review. See § 171.25.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 08-3596 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

*E-Filed 6/15/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES LLOYD BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-3596 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On April 8, 2010, an order sent to petitioner was returned as undeliverable. 

More than 60 days have passed since the order was returned. Accordingly, the petition is

hereby dismissed without prejudice for petitioner’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his

current address pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11(b) and for failure to prosecute this matter

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The order requesting further briefing (Docket No. 10) is hereby VACATED. The

parties are relieved of the obligations that order imposed. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03596-RS Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Blimpie International, Inc., Respondent, v Vincent J. D’Elia et al., Defendants, and Robert Sandow et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 384]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered July 6, 1999, which granted respondent’s motion for a stay of the main action pend*70ing arbitration of appellants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly applied Federal law in determining whether respondent had waived its right to arbitrate under an agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ([FAA] 9 USC § 1*et seq.).*When an agreement to arbitrate falls within the scope of the FAA, “[flederal law in the terms of the Arbitration Act governs [the] issue [of arbitrability] in either *state*or federal court” *(Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v Mercury Constr. Corp.,*460 US 1, 24 [emphasis added]; *see also, Southland Corp. v Keating,*465 US 1, 10-16; *Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera Indus. y Comercial v International Std. Elec. Corp.,*128 Misc 2d 669, 673, *affd*117 AD2d 1027).

We agree with the motion court’s finding that appellants failed to show any prejudice resulting from respondent’s delay in seeking to enforce its right to arbitrate appellants’ counterclaims *(see, Leadertex, Inc. v Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp.,*67 F3d 20, 25-26; *Matter of Advest, Inc. v Wachtel,*253 AD2d 659, 660). Pretrial expense and delay, without more, does not constitute prejudice sufficient to support appellants’ claim *(Leadertex, Inc. v Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp., supra,*at 26). Respondent had engaged in minimal discovery and had not engaged in motion practice prior to seeking arbitration. All discovery was produced by respondent and no depositions had been taken. Since appellants benefitted from the limited discovery undertaken, they cannot claim prejudice *(see, Sweater Bee by Banff v Manhattan Indus.,*754 F2d 457, 464, *cert denied*474 US 819). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MGM’S CABINET INSTALLATION

SERVICES and MICHAEL GORDON

MOXLEY,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01164 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

VACATE STATUS CONFERENCE

Plaintiff seeks in this action to recover under ERISA section 4201, 29 U.S.C. 1381. On

September 11, 2008, Defendant Michael Moxley filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the United

States Bankruptcy Code, automatically staying all proceedings in this action. Plaintiff

submitted a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings and state a that it has now appealed a decision

of the bankruptcy court (Br. at 1).

A further case management conference is scheduled for April 1, 2010. Plaintiff requests

that this hearing be continued indefinitely until a decision on its bankruptcy appeal has been

entered. Plaintiff does not state whether defendants join or object in its request. Plaintiff has

not provided any additional details regarding the decision by the bankruptcy court or its appeal. 

Case 3:08-cv-01164-WHA Document 40 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

For these reasons, plaintiff has not shown good cause to continue the April 1 hearing. 

Plaintiff’s request is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01164-WHA Document 40 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEPSI AMERICAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-02742-SI 

ORDER RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT

The pretrial conference in this case is scheduled for April 19, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. In light of 

the parties' ongoing settlement efforts, the Court will extend the deadline to file the pretrial 

conference statement from April 5, 2016 to April 12, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 315 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27179]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 102204B]


Endangered Species; File No. 1418

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Lawrence D. Wood, Marinelife 
Center of Juno Beach, 14200 U.S. Hwy. 1, Juno Beach, FL, 33408 has been 
issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1418.

ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
    Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Amy Sloan, (301)713-
2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 9, 2004, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (69 FR 54649) that a modification of Permit No. 
1418, issued January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2118), had been requested by the 
above-named individual. The requested modification has been granted 
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 
222-226).
    The modification authorizes Mr. Wood to sample blood for sex 
determinations from the 75 hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea 
turtles he is already authorized to annually capture under the existing 
permit.
    Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on 
a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Stephen L. Leathery,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 04-27179 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### § 234.8 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment.

At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with USAID an Application for Compensation in the form provided in Appendix A to this part. USAID shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than the Guarantee Payment Date. In the event that USAID receives any other notice of an Event of Default, USAID may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to a Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with USAID an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.