WELCH et al v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY
| 1:2006cv00641 |
| April 20, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Richard L. Young |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| 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
357
ENTRY denying 309 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (see Entry). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/11/2009. (PG)
|
|
Filing
261
ENTRY Granting Defendant's Partial 158 Motion to Dismiss (see Entry). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 3/19/2009. (PG)
|
|
Filing
258
ENTRY on PENDING MOTIONS: ENTRY denying Pltfs' 163 Second Motion to Compel. ENTRY granting in part and denying in part Pltfs' 166 Motion to Compel. ENTRY granting in part and denying in part Pltfs' 170 Motion to Compel; ENTRY granting Deft's 245 Motion to Strike (See Entry for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/16/2009. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
223
ENTRY granting 168 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Relating To The Dawn Johnson Noose Incident. (SEE ENTRY) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 01/20/2009. (MRI)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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
| Search for this case: WELCH et al v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
