Beene v. Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff: Timothy Beene
Defendant: Ford Motor Company
Case Number: 1:2008cv01086
Filed: May 22, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Motor Vehicle Office
County: Ouray
Presiding Judge: Boyd N. Boland
Presiding Judge: Marcia S. Krieger
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 253 ORDER Re: 252 Stipulated Release of Bond, filed by Ford Motor Company, by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/19/13. (lswsl )
April 4, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 249 ORDER granting Ford Motor Company's 248 Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal and Tender of Supersedeas Bond. The Court accepts and approves Ford's supersedeas bond in the amount of $5,000,000.00 as adequate security for the Judgment of 6/13/11, by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/4/12.(lygsl, )
March 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 174 ORDER : re: 166 First MOTION to Supplement Expert Disclosures filed by Timothy Beene is GRANTED, and the Scheduling Order is amended to allow the late designations of Drs. Krebs and Cohen; (2) The plaintiff shall disclose, on or before March 11, 20 11, the complete files of Drs. Krebs and Cohen concerning their treatment and care of the plaintiff; (3) The plaintiff shall make Drs. Krebs and Cohen available for depositions by Ford at a date and time as the parties may agree, but not later than M arch 31, 2011; (4) Ford may designate experts in rebuttal to Drs. Krebs and Cohen and provide plaintiffs counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before April 11, 2011; and (5) Ford may file, on or before April 11, 2011, a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 addressing the qualifications and/or opinions of Drs. Krebs or Cohen, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/1/11. (bnbcd, )
February 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 172 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND PRETRIAL ORDER: The Court finds that Mr. Beene has failed to carry his burden of showing that manifest injustice will result if he is not permitted to amend the Pretrial Order. Accordingly, his motions (#[15 6], 158 , 160 ) seeking such relief are DENIED. As noted above, Fords Motion In Limine 114 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court withdraws the reference (#165) of Fords Motion for Protective Order 163 to the Magistrate Judge and that motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/25/11.(msksec, )
June 14, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 130 ORDER declaring mistrial. The jury is discharged without having reached a verdict. The parties shall jointly contact the Court within 30 days to arrange the scheduling of a retrial. By Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/14/10. (msklc2, )
June 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 109 Minute Entry for Jury Trial Day One held before Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/1/10. 94 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED to the extent the subpoena applies only to the witness and the four documents Ford agrees to produced, but is quashed in al l other respects. 95 Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Voir dire; jury selection; opening statements and beginning of presentation of evidence. Witness testimony and exhibits admitted are as contained in the minutes. Trial continued. (Court Reporter Paul Zuckerman) (mskcd) Modified on 6/2/2010 to edit text of Court Reporter name (wjc, ).
October 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The plaintiff shall provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) concerning the opinio ns of Barbara Morrison on or before 12/15/2009. The defendant shall designate all experts in rebuttal to Barbara Morrison and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) concerning those rebuttal experts on or before 01/25/2010. Expert discovery is extended to and including 02/19/2010 solely to allow for the depositions of Barbara Morrison and any experts designated by the defendant in rebuttal to the opinions of Ms. Morrison. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/14/2009.(wjc, )
September 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER: re: granting 45 Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadline; denying 39 Defendant Fords Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Expert Disclosure. The parties shall submit, on or before October 12, 2009, a motion to amend the scheduling order and a proposed amended schedule which addresses deadlines and discovery limitations, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/25/09. (bnbcd, )
January 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 24 STIPULATED SHARING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 01/09/09. (wjc, )
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Beene v. Ford Motor Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Timothy Beene
Represented By: William Lawrence Keating
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: Ford Motor Company
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?