alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROSENBLUM v. DINGFELDER et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 7, 1939.

Bernard Gordon, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for defendants.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The defendants seek twofold relief. First, an order directing plaintiff to serve a verified bill of particulars of certain matters alleged in the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and second, for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents for the inspection of the defendants’ attorney and for permission to make copies of such documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the aforementioned rules.

The complaint, charging the defendants w-ith fraud and conspiracy, was served on March 13th, 1939, and the defendants have not as yet answered the said complaint. Under Rule 12(e) a motion such as the present one is proper in order *180to prepare a responsive pleading or to prepare for trial. The defendants seek the relief in order to he able to prepare their answers. The motion papers have set forth the details desired but have not stated the defects complained of (except in a general and vague manner) as required by the rule. The court has examined the complaint, as well as each of the items demanded, and is of the opinion that plaintiff should furnish to the defendant items 3(a) and 7 set forth in the notice of motion. Otherwise, the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendants to prepare a responsive pleading. It may he that after issue is joined, the defendants will be able to obtain the information they seek either by oral depositions or written interrogatories as provided by Rules 5, 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Hulbert of this court, in a somewhat similar application as the instant one, said (Tully v. Howard et al., 27 F.Supp. 6, 7, decided January 31, 1939) : “In the instant case, the demand for a bill of particulars is in the nature of interrogatories and imposed upon the Motion Judge the supervision of an examination before trial. It certainly does not simplify procedure”.

The first branch of this motion is granted with respect to items 3(a) and 7 and denied as to the balance of the items.

The motion to require the plaintiff to produce certain documents for inspection and for permission to make copies thereof pursuant to Rule 34 is granted. The time and place and manner of making the inspection and making of copies are to be specified in the order to be submitted in accordance with this opinion.

Settle order on 2 days’ notice.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (09-063)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.   

# SUMMARY:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The Meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting from the scientific community and other persons scientific and technical information relevant to program planning. 

# DATES:

Monday, July 13, 2009, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

# ADDRESSES:

L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, Renoir Room, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452, fax (202) 358-4118, or                         *mnorris@nasa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics: 

—Heliophysics Division Overview and Program Status; 

—Annual Review of Heliophysics Science Performance for Fiscal Year 2009; 

—Status of Proposed Revision to Heliophysics Data Policy; 

—Discussion of Decadal Survey Assessment and NASA Response; 

—Update on Interagency Planning for Space Weather Monitor at the L1 Libration Point. 

                    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be requested to sign a register. For future information, you may contact Marian Norris via e-mail at                     *mnorris@nasa.gov*                     or by telephone at (202) 358-4452.                 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-16215 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
#### Luciano Cadena, Appellant, v Brandis Espinal et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 795]

*583The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see *Toure v Avis Rent*A *Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of the plaintiffs treating chiropractor failed to establish that he had personal knowledge of the plaintiffs condition prior to the alleged accident or of the reasons that caused the plaintiff to discontinue treatment after five months. In the absence of such knowledge, the chiropractor’s affidavit was insufficient to explain the cessation of treatment, as was necessary *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; *Verette v Zia,*44 AD3d 747, 748 [2007]; *Manning v Tejeda,*38 AD3d 622 [2007]) or to address the findings of the defendants’ examining radiologist, who concluded that the disc herniations in the plaintiffs spine were degenerative and pre-existing, and thus not caused by the subject accident *(see Giraldo v Mandanici,*24 AD3d 419, 420 [2005]; *Lorthe v Adeyeye,*306 AD2d 252, 253 [2003]; *Pajda v Pedone,*303 AD2d 729, 730 [2003]; *Ginty v MacNamara,*300 AD2d 624, 625 [2002]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAmendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Sonus Networks, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Richard J. Gaynor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(1)           the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Date: April 30, 2009

 
|     | /s/ RICHARD J. GAYNOR            |
|----------|----------------------------------|
|     | Richard J. Gaynor                |
| * * | *Chief  Financial Officer*       |
| * * | *(Principal  Financial Officer)* |

 

----
#### SLYDELL v. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO.

No. 88789.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Oct 6, 1939.

*16Lester Wood and I. H. Halpern, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

H. W. Kelly and R. E. L. Goff, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

PROCTOR, Justice.

1. For Interrogatories — Rule 33, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.

Objection to Interrogatory is sustained. Upon the facts appearing at the hearing, the interrogatory is not justified. Moreover, such steps should be taken seasonably and not be delayed until pre-trial of the case. Except as to some newly developed situation, all such preliminary matters should be disposed of before pretrial. The proposed interrogatory also seems objectionable in form. It would cast upon the defendant the duty and responsibility of determining questions of law as to relevancy of matters referred to in the questions.

2. For Discovery — Rule 34.

Objection thereto is sustained and motion denied. Good cause is not shown as required by Rule. The documents are not evidence, except possibly as a means of contradicting one who in the trial may testify contrary to a previous written statement, signed or approved by him. Moreover, as stated above concerning interrogatory, the motion is not timely. Also other facts shown at hearing negative the idea of any good cause existing in support of the motion.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the President Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the periodic report of Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Wilson Cheung, the President of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Wilson CheungPresident Date: January 15, 2008
April 13, 2012

Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

United States Magistrate Judge

United State District Court

Frank R. Lautenberg U.S. P.O. & Cthse, Rm 417

PO Box 999

Newark, NJ 07101

Re: James Wright v. Hartford Financial Services Group, et al.

Civil Action No.: 2:11-CV-00602-SRC-MAS

Dear Judge Hochberg:

I am in receipt of the court’s order requesting that I respond to Hartford’s Statement of 

Facts. I am respectfully requesting an adjournment of this order due to the fact that I 

had wrist surgery and have been out of the office. I will try to have a response to the 

court by Monday, but in the event that I cannot I would like a week to respond. I have 

spoken to my adversary and have their consent.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kevin T. Kutyla

Kevin T. Kutyla

KTK:tw

Cc: Daniel Meier, Esq. – via fax 212-422-0925

Case 2:11-cv-00602-FSH-MAH Document 67 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1976
S05A0071.

#### WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

(611 SE2d 51)

Decided March 28, 2005.

*John R. Martin,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Todd E. Naugle, Bonnie K. Smith, ErmanJ. Tanjuatco, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General,*for appellee.

*James C. Bonner, Jr., Michael Mears,*amici curiae.

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

This appeal arises out of the pending death penalty prosecution of Floyd Wayne Williams. This Court granted Williams’ petition for an interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred by removing Williams’ counsel, Matthew Rubenstein, from the case.

We conclude that this case is controlled by our recent decision in *Grant v. State*
      ***
      **and that the trial court abused its discretion by removing Rubenstein over Williams’ objection. Accordingly, we remand the case with direction that the trial court reinstate Ruben-stein as Williams’ counsel.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

278 Ga. 817 (607 SE2d 586) (2005).
#### J. H. Wiggins, as Constable, v. Mollie E. Foster.

No. 337.

1. *Evidence*— Husband *and Wife*— Agency. Husband and wife may testify for or against each other concerning transactions in which one acted as the agent of the other.

*2.-Declarations in Disparagement of Title.*Declarations of a person made while in possession of personal property in disparagement of his title or explanatory of the character of his possession are admissible as part of the *res gestee.*

Error from Greenwood district court; C.W. Shinn, judge.

Opinion filed December 21, 1898.

Affirmed.

*■Glogston & Fuller,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. P. Kelley,*and *W. S. Marlin,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Schoonover, J.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Greenwood county by the defendant in error to recover the value of certain hogs levied on by the plaintiff in error as constable, by virtue of an execution issued on a judgment against E. H. Foster,, the husband of defendant in error, Mollie É. Foster.

The question in controversy was, whether the wife- or the husband was the owner of the property. It is; contended that the court erred in permitting the husband of the plaintiff to testify in behalf of his wife 'in a suit in which he was not a party. It appears from the record that the husband was acting as agent of the wife. As to all matters covered by the agency established between the husband and the wife, he was a competent witness. (Gen. Stat. 1897, ch. 95, § 334 ; Gen. Stat. 1889, ¶ 4418.)

*580It is further contended that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence certain declarations relating to the ownership of the hogs made by the husband while the hogs were in his possession. The record in this case is sufficient to bring the testimony complained of within the rule, that the declarations of a person while in possession of personal property in disparagement of his title or explanatory of the character of his possession are admissible as part of the *res gesto. (Cunningham v. Fuller,*35 Neb. 58, 52 N. *W.*836; *Durham v. Shannon,*116 Ind. 403, 19 N. E. 190.)

■ There is no error in the record sufficient to justify a reversal of the case. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
#### Lutine Realty Corp., Appellant, v Perry Films, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 33]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J), entered May 17, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant tenants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the cross motion with respect to the third cause of action, for use and occupancy, that cause of action reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Unrefuted evidence in the record establishes the longstanding acquiescence and involvement of plaintiff landlord and its predecessors-in-interest in the illegal conversion of the com*487mercial loft space in the subject building, including defendant tenants’ leasehold space. The building’s certificate of occupancy did not permit residential use, and the local zoning laws restricted area property development to commercial and light manufacturing uses. While there was an exception in the zoning laws that permitted combined living-working arrangements for qualified artists, the record is devoid of evidence or substantive argument indicating that such artists resided in the building. Although the landlord has no claim for use and occupancy of the leased space to the extent that it was illegally used for residential purposes *(see e.g. Hornfeld v Gaare,*130 AD2d 398 [1987]), the tenants have admitted using the two units in question, in part, for commercial purposes, and defendant may recover use and occupancy for the commercially utilized portion of the leased space. Inasmuch as the extent of the commercial use is unclear from the record, a trial on that issue is warranted to determine the use and occupancy to which the landlord would be entitled. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW :

JERSEY, INC., :

:

Plaintiff, :

 : Civil Action No. 10-3984 (FSH)

v. :

:

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL, : ORDER ON INFORMAL 

945 PENSION FUND, ET AL., : APPLICATION

: 

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court on the application of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

[“movant”], attorneys for Plaintiff Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc., for the pro hac vice

admission of Susan Katz Hoffman, Esq., Matthew J. Hank, Esq., and Thomas J. Bender, Esq. 

[“counsel”], pursuant to L. Civ. R. 101.1;

and the Court having considered the submissions in support of the application, which

reflect that counsel satisfies the requirements set forth in L. Civ. R. 101.1(c)(1); 

and there being no opposition to this application; 

and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON THIS 23rd day of September, 2010.

ORDERED that the application for the pro hac vice admission of counsel is granted; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall abide by all rules of this Court, including

all disciplinary rules, and shall notify the Court immediately of any matter affecting counsel’s

standing at the bar of any court;

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 26 Filed 09/23/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 498
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel is deemed to consent to the appointment of the

Clerk of the Court as the agent upon whom service of process may be made for all actions against

counsel that may arise from counsel’s participation in this matter;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant shall (a) be attorneys of record in this case

in accordance with L. Civ. R. 101.1(c); (b) be served all papers in this action and such service

shall be deemed sufficient service upon counsel; (c) sign (or arrange for a member of the firm

admitted to practice in New Jersey to sign) all pleadings, briefs, and other papers submitted to

this Court; (d) appear at all proceedings; and (e) be responsible for the conduct of the cause and

counsel in this matter; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall make payments to the New Jersey

Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, pursuant to N.J. Court Rule 1:28-2, for each year in which

counsel represents the client in this matter;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall each pay $150.00 to the Clerk of the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for admission pro hac vice in

accordance with L. Civ. R. 101.1(c)(3); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all terms of the Orders entered in this case, including

all deadlines set forth therein, shall remain in full force and effect and no delay in discovery,

motions, trial or any other proceeding shall occur because of the participation of counsel or their

inability to be in attendance at proceedings.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 26 Filed 09/23/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 499
GCI-EX10.1.1_2012.12.30-10K






Exhibit 10-1-1


GANNETT CO., INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE MEDICAL PLAN


Amendment No. 1


Effective January 1, 2012, Gannett Co., Inc., hereby amends the Gannett Co., Inc. Supplemental Executive Medical Plan, amended and restated as of January 1, 2011, by deleting the last sentence of the paragraph entitled “Benefits Provided” and substituting the following in its place:
The amount payable to any participant with respect to the total medical expenses incurred for himself/herself and all eligible dependents for each plan year (i.e., the calendar year) will not exceed the minimum annual limit permitted under Section 2711(a)(2) of the Public Health Services Act and the regulations issued thereunder.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gannett Co., Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of December 19, 2012.


	
		
	Dated:  December 19, 2012
	GANNETT CO., INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By: /s/ Kevin E. Lord

	 
	Name: Kevin E. Lord

	 
	Title: Senior Vice President/Human Resources
EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Scherne, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of Dentalserv.com on Form 10- QSB, for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Dentalserv.com

                                 /s/  Robert Scherne
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Robert Scherne
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 Dentalserv.com

                                 August 10, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF DIGITAL MICROWAVE
CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,373
<INVENTORY>                                     38,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,709
<PP&E>                                          49,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           316
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,850
<SALES>                                        172,418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,418
<CGS>                                          133,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   580
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,647)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,175)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,472)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
# table72_q9.3_size