Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Tennessee Middle District Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University

Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University

Plaintiff:	Brigitte Kovacevich
Defendant:	Vanderbilt University
Case Number:	3:2009cv00068
Filed:	January 20, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office:	Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County:	Davidson
Presiding Judge:	Joe Brown
Presiding Judge:	John T. Nixon
Nature of Suit:	Both
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

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
April 12, 2010	Filing 150 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court rules as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment 73 is hereby DENIED; (2) Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment 76 is hereby DENIED; (3) Defe ndant's Motion To Strike Report Of Dr. Estrada-Belli 113 is hereby GRANTED; (4) Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Statement Of Material Facts Which Preclude A Grant Of Summary Judgment, D.E. 126 [1 35] is hereby DENIED; and (5) this case will proceed to Final Pretrial Conference, to be set in a separate Order. (6) At the Final Pretrial Conference the Court will hear argument and any evidence presented under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical s, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), in connection with the Motion On Behalf Of The Defendant, Vanderbilt University To Exclude The Testimony Of Plaintiffs Expert Witness, John Monaghan, Ph.D. 109 . It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 4/12/10. (tmw)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 12, 2010

Filing 150 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court rules as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment 73 is hereby DENIED; (2) Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment 76 is hereby DENIED; (3) Defe ndant's Motion To Strike Report Of Dr. Estrada-Belli 113 is hereby GRANTED; (4) Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Statement Of Material Facts Which Preclude A Grant Of Summary Judgment, D.E. 126 [1 35] is hereby DENIED; and (5) this case will proceed to Final Pretrial Conference, to be set in a separate Order. (6) At the Final Pretrial Conference the Court will hear argument and any evidence presented under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical s, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), in connection with the Motion On Behalf Of The Defendant, Vanderbilt University To Exclude The Testimony Of Plaintiffs Expert Witness, John Monaghan, Ph.D. 109 . It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 4/12/10. (tmw)

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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Brigitte Kovacevich
Represented By:	Richard James Braun
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 ]
Defendant: Vanderbilt University
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?