Heineman et al v. American Home Products Corporation et al
| Jennifer Heineman and Eric Allen Heineman |
| American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst International, Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation |
| 1:2013cv02070 |
| August 5, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Jefferson |
| Marcia S. Krieger |
| Craig B. Shaffer |
| Personal Injury: Health Care |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| 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
122
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 3/24/2015. Denying 104 Motion for Leave. Denying 105 Motion for Leave. Denying 106 Motion for Leave. Granting 115 Motion for Leave. Proposed jury instructions and proposed voir dire due 3/30/2015. Motions in liminie due 15 days from today, responses 10 days after motion filed, no replies. Proposed Final Pretrial Order due by 4/8/2015. FTR: Courtroom A-402. (amont)
|
|
Filing
119
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 81 is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as the Court has reconsidered its oral ruling in light of the arguments presented by Plaintiffs, and DENIED IN PART, insofar as, upon such reconsideration, the Court reaches the same conclusions that it previously had. Opinions 2 and 3 by Dr. Blume do not satisfy the foundational requirements of Fed.R.Evid.702. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 3/11/15.(msksec, )
|
|
Filing
99
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Preliminary Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/28/2015. ORDERED: Parties MUST submit a revised preliminary final pretrial order OR an updated witness list by 5:00 p.m. ( Mountain Time) on February 6, 2015. ORDERED: Plaintiffs' MOTION 91 to File Reply to Defendants Opposition to Motion to Reconsider or to Clarify FRE 702 Ruling Regarding Dr. Cheryl Blume is DENIED AS MOOT. ORDERED: The Court will issue a separate order setting a Telephonic Status Conference for next week to further discuss the preliminary final pretrial order. FTR: Courtroom A-402. (amont)
|
|
Filing
86
MINUTE ENTRY for Final Pretrial Conference held before Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/25/2014. 74 Motion for Order is DENIED. Other matters addressed are set forth in the Minutes. Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom. (pglov)
|
|
Filing
69
TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER - CIVIL by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/18/14. (msksec, )
|
|
Filing
68
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Wyeth's Motions for Summary Judgment ( 29 , 30 ) are DENIED. The record (#25) reflects that discovery in this action was to have been completed by October 1, 2013, w ith only limited discovery reserved for the completion thereafter. It appearing that the only remaining pretrial matters in this case concern hearings regarding the admissibility of certain expert testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 702, the Court directs t hat the parties jointly contact chambers within 30 days to schedule a Pretrial Conference and request the issuance of a Trial Preparation Order to govern the completion of the parties' joint Proposed Pretrial Order. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/8/14.(msksec, )
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER of Recusal by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/6/13. (dkals, )
|
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 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.
