ADAMS et al v. COOK MEDICAL et al
||KEITH N. ADAMS and LARA L. ADAMS
||COOK GROUP, INC., COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL INCORPORATED, DOES I-XX, ROE CORPORATIONS XXI-XL and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
||January 4, 2013
||Indiana Southern District Court
||Tim A. Baker
||Richard L. Young
|Nature of Suit:
||Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability
|Cause of Action:
||28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 1, 2015
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Status Conference held on 4/30/2015. First, the Court considered whether communications between Cook and its in-house counsel that relate to this litigation and post-date Febr uary 23, 2010 (when Cook was first on notice of possible litigation involving the at-issue IVC filters) needed to be listed on a privilege log. The Court ruled that such communication need not be listed. Second, the Court considered Cook's use o f an attorneys' eyes only designation. Plaintiffs argued that the definition of what documents constitute AEO documents is overbroad, and urged the Court to either require the definition to be narrowed or discarded. The Court declines to discard the AEO designation. The Court ordered Cook to narrow its definition of AEO documents and recommended using specific examples of AEO documents as opposed to using broad categories of documents. See Entry for further details. Associated Cases: 1:14-ml-02570-RLY-TAB et al.(NRN)
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
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.