Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad et al
| 2:2006cv02399 |
| September 20, 2006 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Kansas City Office |
| Julie A. Robinson |
| David J. Waxse |
| Federal Employer's Liability |
| 45 U.S.C. ยง 51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
173
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 114 Motion for Protective Order. Union Pacific Railroad Company shall designate one or more representatives to testify on its behalf regarding the topics set forth in Kansas Waste Management of Kansas, Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 10/24/2008. (bh)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER granting 88 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint within three (3) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall make himself available for his deposition regarding his loss of consortium claim in Kansas City, Missouri, at the offices of Waste Management's counsel. Waste Management's request for attorneys fees and expenses related to re-deposing Plaintiff is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 9/12/2008. (bh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
