EMLEY et al v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. et al
| DENNIS EMLEY and DONNA EMLEY |
| L.N.K. INTERNATIONAL, INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC. |
| 1:2017cv02350 |
| July 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Larry J. McKinney |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
| Both |
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
338
ORDER denying 325 Defendant Perrigo's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/31/2020. (CBU)
|
|
Filing
331
SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 327] in all other respects is stayed pending completion of the trial, except for the requests that Perrigos answer be stricken or a default judgment entered against Perrigo, which we deny. (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/24/2020.(NAD)
|
|
Filing
323
ORDER - DENYING DEFENDANTS PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Because the criteria for interlocutory appeal are conjunctive, not disjunctive, and Defendants have failed to satisfy all of those requir ements, their request for immediate interlocutory appeal must be denied. Ahrenholz, 219 F.3d at 676. Defendants Petition for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Dkt. 202 is accordingly DENIED. Defendant L.N.K.s Motions to Join Dkt. 204 , Dkt. 256 are GRANTED. Defendant Perrigos Motion to Strike Dkt. 321 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/8/2020. *** SEE ORDER *** (CKM)
|
|
Filing
199
ORDER denying 85 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 87 Motion for Oral Argument; denying 88 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 101 Motion for Oral Argument; granting in part and denying in part 120 Motion for Summary Judgment; gran ting in part and denying in part 122 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 124 Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claim and DENIED in all other respects. This case will proceed on the other claims (See Order). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/27/2019. (CBU)
|
|
Filing
64
*** PLEASE DISREGARD - DOCKETED IN ERROR *** DISCOVERY ORDER: The Court held a telephonic status conference on May 3, 2018, to address discovery disputes. Following this co nference, two issues remained unresolved: 1) whether the Individual Defendants must produce unredacted copies of redacted text messages and 2) the temporal scope of Defendants' produ ction. The Magistrate Judge took these issues under advisement and ordered the parties to submit a sampling of unredacted messages. A review of these messages reveals the Court needs to confer further with the parties. The Court sets the matter for a telephonic conference at 10:30 a.m. on June 7, 2018, to address these issues. Counsel shall call the Court at 317-229-3660. HOC was not p ermitted to view the unredacted texts, but rather to select redacted texts for which the Individual Defendants were to submit unredacted versions for the Cou rt's review. The Individual Defendants' submission is attached as Exhibit 1, and HOC's selections are attached as Exhibits 2 through 11. These exhibits are sealed to all but the Court. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 5/24/2018.(SWM) Modified on 5/24/2018 (SWM).
|
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.
