Judge Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Preliminary Discovery with Conditions
Case Summary
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for limited preliminary discovery with conditions. The order, linked to docket number 6-1, requires the plaintiff to file an amended proposed order specifying the time frame for document production. The ruling limits discovery to documents created within a defined period.
Latest development
ORDER - FOR REASONS stated from the bench and in accord with specific rulings and instructions thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Preliminary Discovery 6 (Motion) is
Ruling · May 11, 2026
An Amended Proposed Order Dkt was filed.
Key Issues
- • Limited preliminary discovery
- • Temporal scope restriction
- • Amended proposed order required
Docket Snapshot
Court
Court not identified
Awaiting court metadata
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Ruling stage
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
ORDER - FOR REASONS stated from the bench and in accord with specific rulings and instructions thereto, it is hereby
Ruling · May 11, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
1 Presiding Judge
1 linked entity
Judge
Ivan D. Davis
What the record shows
The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.
The newest docket activity we have is a ruling dated May 11, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes Ivan D. Davis.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
The Story So Far
Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct limited preliminary discovery on February 17, 2026. The order requires the plaintiff to file an amended proposed order that narrows the temporal scope of the documents to be produced.
The amended order must specify a defined time period for the document production. The court set a deadline of February 20, 2026, for the plaintiff to submit this amended proposed order. This ruling follows the court's bench statements and specific instructions related to the scope and timing of discovery.
The case remains active, with discovery issues at the forefront. On May 11, 2026, the plaintiff filed the amended proposed order as required. The court will now review this submission to determine if it meets the temporal limitations mandated in the February order.
The outcome will shape the scope of early discovery and potentially influence the pace of the case going forward.
update What Changed This Week
receipt_long Source expand_more
ORDER - FOR REASONS stated from the bench and in accord with specific rulings and instructions thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Preliminary Discovery 6 (Motion) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall FILE an amended Proposed Order Dkt. No. 6-1 for this Motion that specifies the temporal scope of the documents to be produced, limited to documents created within a specific time period. The amended Proposed Order shall be filed no la
Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
Case Timeline
1 eventORDER - FOR REASONS stated from the bench and in accord with specific rulings and instructions thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Preliminary Discovery 6 (Motion) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall FILE an amended Proposed Order Dkt. No. 6-1 for this
An Amended Proposed Order Dkt was filed.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
7 hours, 25 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.