TAYLOR v. BOB-ROHR-INDY MOTORS

TAYLOR v. BOB-ROHR-INDY MOTORS

Defendant:	BOB-ROHR-INDY MOTORS
Interested Party:	INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Case Number:	1:2009cv00628
Filed:	May 20, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	E Office
County:	Marion
Presiding Judge:	William T. Lawrence
Presiding Judge:	Debra McVicker Lynch
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	E
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
October 18, 2010	Filing 57 Entry Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Further Proceedings: For the reasons set forth in this Entry, the defendant's motion for summary judgment 44 is granted in part and denied in part. The defendant's motion for summ ary judgment is granted as to Taylor's claim of discrimination based on the termination of his employment. The defendants motion for summary judgment is denied as to Taylor's claim of hostile environment. As noted above, the plaintiff' s motion 49 is denied. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim resolved in this Entry. The Magistrate Judge is requested to schedule a status/settlement conference to determine the further development and resolution of the plaintiff's hostile environment claim *SEE ENTRY*. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/18/2010. (DWH)
March 11, 2010	Filing 41 Entry Concerning Selected Matters: The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 36 is granted to the extent that if Amcor PET Packing provides any records to the defendant which would, absent this court's Sealed Order of January 11, 2010, v iolate the terms of any confidentiality provisions contained in the settlement agreement in Taylor v. Amcor PET Packing, 1:06-cv-1745-DFH-TAB, such records shall be subject to a protective order. Counsel for the defendant shall not use or disclose su ch records for any purpose other than what is reasonably necessary for the litigation of this action. The defendant's motion for leave to file amended answer 38 is granted. The clerk shall docket and file the tendered Amended Answer. The def endant's motion for extension of time to complete discovery 39 is granted to the extent that if the case is not resolved on summary judgment upon the filing of a renewed motion for discovery the parties will be permitted to conduct additional discovery on a schedule that will be established at that time SEE ENTRY. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/11/2010. (DWH)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 18, 2010

Filing 57 Entry Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Further Proceedings: For the reasons set forth in this Entry, the defendant's motion for summary judgment 44 is granted in part and denied in part. The defendant's motion for summ ary judgment is granted as to Taylor's claim of discrimination based on the termination of his employment. The defendants motion for summary judgment is denied as to Taylor's claim of hostile environment. As noted above, the plaintiff' s motion 49 is denied. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim resolved in this Entry. The Magistrate Judge is requested to schedule a status/settlement conference to determine the further development and resolution of the plaintiff's hostile environment claim ***SEE ENTRY***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/18/2010. (DWH)

March 11, 2010

Filing 41 Entry Concerning Selected Matters: The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 36 is granted to the extent that if Amcor PET Packing provides any records to the defendant which would, absent this court's Sealed Order of January 11, 2010, v iolate the terms of any confidentiality provisions contained in the settlement agreement in Taylor v. Amcor PET Packing, 1:06-cv-1745-DFH-TAB, such records shall be subject to a protective order. Counsel for the defendant shall not use or disclose su ch records for any purpose other than what is reasonably necessary for the litigation of this action. The defendant's motion for leave to file amended answer 38 is granted. The clerk shall docket and file the tendered Amended Answer. The def endant's motion for extension of time to complete discovery 39 is granted to the extent that if the case is not resolved on summary judgment upon the filing of a renewed motion for discovery the parties will be permitted to conduct additional discovery on a schedule that will be established at that time **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/11/2010. (DWH)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: TAYLOR v. BOB-ROHR-INDY MOTORS
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: BOB-ROHR-INDY MOTORS
Represented By:	Jeffrey B. Halbert
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 ]
Interested party: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Represented By:	James J. Hutton
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?