Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc.

Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Norah C. Oehmke
Defendant:	Medtronic, Inc.,
Case Number:	0:2013cv02415
Filed:	September 3, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office:	DMN Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Michael J. Davis
Presiding Judge:	Janie S. Mayeron
Nature of Suit:	Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12101
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 12, 2015	Filing 54 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's March 26, 2015 Order 39 is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff may conduct the deposition of Anthony Branch; however, the deposition is limited to questions regarding Bran ch's recollection of what was stated during the February 24, 2010 meeting with Plaintiff and Kathryn Engdahl. Counsel may not inquire into other communications Branch had at other times with other persons. Counsel may not inquire regarding Bra nch's mental impressions, litigation strategy, work product, or attorney-client privileged information. This Order does not impact any future ruling the Court may make regarding the admissibility of statements made during the February 24, 2010 meeting. 2. Defendant's Objection 42 is OVERRULED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/12/15. (GRR)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 12, 2015

Filing 54 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's March 26, 2015 Order 39 is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff may conduct the deposition of Anthony Branch; however, the deposition is limited to questions regarding Bran ch's recollection of what was stated during the February 24, 2010 meeting with Plaintiff and Kathryn Engdahl. Counsel may not inquire into other communications Branch had at other times with other persons. Counsel may not inquire regarding Bra nch's mental impressions, litigation strategy, work product, or attorney-client privileged information. This Order does not impact any future ruling the Court may make regarding the admissibility of statements made during the February 24, 2010 meeting. 2. Defendant's Objection 42 is OVERRULED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/12/15. (GRR)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Oehmke v. Medtronic, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Medtronic, Inc.,
Represented By:	Marko J Mrkonich
Represented By:	Kristine D Yen
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Norah C. Oehmke
Represented By:	John D Thompson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?