CARTER v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY
| BRYANT CARTER |
| ELI LILLY & COMPANY |
| 1:2010cv01669 |
| December 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 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
81
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION - Lilly's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 48 ) is hereby GRANTED. A separate final judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant Eli Lilly & Company and against the Plaintiff Bryant Carter. *SEE ENTRY*. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/25/2012. (JD)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File His Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Related Exhibits Under Seal 54 - It is ordered that Lilly shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to make a good faith determination whether any of the documents currently filed under provisional seal 53 are eligible to maintain that seal and, if so, it shall file a supporting brief setting forth the legal and factual basis it contends supports sealing each document or notification to the Court that it does not intend to file a motion to maintain the filing of these documents under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 1/27/2012.(JLM)
|
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
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.
