Gray v. Koch Foods, Inc. et al (MAG2)
| Ka'Toria Gray |
| Koch Foods, Inc., Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC, David Birchfield and Melissa McDickinson |
| 2:2017cv00595 |
| September 5, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| David A. Baker |
| William Keith Watkins |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| 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
538
ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff Ka'Toria Gray's 513 Motion for a New Trial, as further set out in Order. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 7/28/2022. (am, )
|
|
Filing
415
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (10 the 251 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC is granted in part and denied in part; it is GRANTED as to Counts V and VII, but DENIED as to Counts I,II,III, IV, and VI; (2) the 248 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Koch Foods, Inc. is granted in part and denied in part; it is GRANTED as to Counts I,II,III,IV,V,VII but DENIED as to Count VI; (3) the 249 MOTION for Summary Judgment fil ed by Melissa McDickinson is DENIED; (4) the 250 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David Birchfield is DENIED; (5) the 253 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ka'Toria Gray is granted in part and denied in part; it is GRANTED as to Count II of the Counterclaims, but is DENIED as to Count I; (6) The claims for hostile work environment sexual harassment, assault and battery, invasion of privacy, outrage, and negligent training and retention alleged by Gray shall proceed t o trial against Ala-Koch; (7) the claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment shall proceed to trial against Koch Foods, Inc.; (8) The claims for assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and outrage alleged by Gray shall proceed to trial ag ainst Melissa McDickinson and David Birchfield; (9) The claim for defamation alleged by Melissa McDickinson and David Birchfield against Ka'Toria Gray shall proceed to trial, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 1/14/2022. (djy, )
|
|
Filing
393
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the defs' 311 MOTION is DENIED to the extent the defs seek to disqualify or exclude Leirin Ragan Sides as a witness in this case; However, if the Plaintiff continues to list Side s as a witness that she may call at trial, the Defendants are permitted to take Sides's deposition on or by 10/15/2021, related solely to the issue of authentication of the subject photographs; (2) the defs' 311 Motion is DENIED to th e extent the Defendants seek to disqualify the law firm of Haynes & Haynes or any of the attorneys currently representing the Plaintiff; (3) the defs' 311 Motion is DENIED to the extent the Defendants seek leave to reopen discovery in this case for the purposes of taking depositions (other than the deposition of Sides which will be permitted, or any other depositions that the Court may allow by separate order) or obtaining notes and communications; (4) All other relief sought by the Defendants in the 311 Motion is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr on 9/14/2021. (djy, )
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER DENYING as moot plf's 56 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Innotex, Inc.; further ORDERING that on or before 9/11/2018, the parties shall file with the court an updated status report concerning their progress made in resolving the def's 65 motion for protective order. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 8/28/18. (djy, )
|
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 Alabama Middle 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
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.
