HURT et al v. VANTLIN et al
| ANDREA HURT, DEADRA HURT, DEBBIE HURT and WILLIAM HURT |
| WILLIAM ARBAUGH, RICHARD BLANTON, AMY BURROWS-BECKHAM, CITY OF EVANSVILLE, DAN DEYOUNG, ZACHARY JONES, LARRY NELSON, JASON PAGETT, JACK SPENCER, JEFF VANTLIN and MATTHEW WISE |
| 3:2014cv00092 |
| July 1, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Evansville Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
486
ORDER denying 450 Motion, denying 451 Motion for Reconsideration - The Court DENIES The KSP Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and to Stay Pending Resolution of Proceed ings, 450 , and the EPD Defendants' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order on Motions in Limine Dated December 13, 2019 or, Alternatively, to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal, 451 , to the extent that they seek reconsideration of the Court's December 13, 2019 decision. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/23/2020. (AAS)
|
|
Filing
457
ORDER - The Court ORDERS the parties to be prepared to present oral argument on the Defendants reconsideration requests at the February 20, 2020 final pretrial conference scheduled in this matter. [See Filing No. 442.] At the final pretrial conferenc e, Plaintiffs must also be prepared to advise the Court whether they intend to pursue all of the claims set forth in the Courts August 23, 2019 Order, [Filing No. 435], at trial, as pursuit of certain claims will inform the Courts ruling on the motio ns to reconsider. The KSP Defendants Motion to Reconsider and in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and to Stay Pending Resolution of Proceedings, [Filing No. 450], and the EPD Defendants Motion to Reconsider the Court s Order on Motions in Limine Dated December 13, 2019 or, Alternatively, to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal, [Filing No. 451], are DENIED to the extent that the motions request certification for interlocutory appeal of questions related to the Courts decision on the admissibility of the state court judges probable cause determination; The motions are also DENIED AS MOOT to the extent that they request that this case be stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal; and The motions REMAIN UNDER ADVISEMENT to the extent that they request that the Court reconsider its decision to exclude at trial any evidence of the state court judges probable cause finding. The Court will hear oral argument on the requests for reconsideration at the February 20, 2020 final pretrial conference in this matter. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/6/2020.(JDH)
|
|
Filing
448
ORDER - The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the KSP Defendants' Motions in Limine, 391 , the EPD Defendants' Motions in Limine, 397 , and Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine, 407 ; DENIES Defendants' Consolidated Motion to Ta ke Judicial Notice and Motion for Determination on Collateral Estoppel, 398 , and the EPD Defendants' Supplemental Motions in Limine, 420 ; and GRANTS the parties' Agreed Motions in Limine, 401 . To the extent the Court has found that an y evidence was admissible for a limited purpose, the party seeking limitations on admissibility must submit a proposed limiting jury instruction for the Court's consideration by February 6, 2020. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/13/2019. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
435
ORDER - The Court OVERRULES IN PART and SUSTAINS IN PART Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 430 , Defendants Jeff Vantlin, Jack Spencer, William Arbaugh, and Jason Pagett's Objection to Report and Recommendation Regarding Claims Remaining for Trial, 429 , and KSP Defendants' Wise and Jones' Objection to Report and Recommendation Regarding Claims Remaining for Trial, 428 . The Court notes that significant time has been spent sif ting through the parties' arguments regarding the proper labels to give to Plaintiffs' claims. Because the substantive focus of these claims, rather than the specific constitutional amendments they fall under, are what is important and what will be relevant for the jury at trial, the Court simplifies the labels of Plaintiffs' claims below. The Court has endeavored to parse out the relevant time periods and claimed injuries into separate claims, and will also work with the parties to craft jury instructions and verdict forms which ensure against the possibility of multiple recoveries for the same injuries. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/23/2019. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
348
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the pending Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, 333 , and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Defendants' Appeal as Frivolous, 343 . This action is hereby STAYED. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/3/2017. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
251
ORDER - The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Defendants' requests for additional pages to support their forthcoming motions for summary judgment. [Filing No. 247; Filing No. 249.] Defendants Jones and Wise are granted leave to file a supporting summary judgment brief of up to 50 pages. The Evansville Defendants are granted leave to file a supporting summary judgment brief of up to 50 pages. Plaintiffs may file briefs up to 50 pages in response to either of these motions. Addition ally, all parties are ORDERED to review the Court's Practices and Procedures before any summary judgment filing, particularly Appendix A, which sets forth a detailed guide for how to file and cite summary judgment exhibits. [Filing No. 45 at 16-18.] (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/27/2016. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
231
ORDER - On June 6, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order, granting in part and denying in part a Motion to Compel previously filed by Plaintiffs. [Filing No. 212 (granting in part and denying in part Filing No. 174).] The Defendants related to the City of Evansville (the "Evansville Defendants") object to a portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order requiring them to answer three interrogatories. [Filing No. 212.] Plaintiffs oppose the Evansville Defendants' Objection, and ask this Court to order the City of Evansville1 (the "City") to produce the interrogatory responses within 14 days. [Filing No. 226.] For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Evansville Defendants' Objectio n. [Filing No. 218 (unredacted sealed version of motion); Filing No. 220 (redacted public version of motion). For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the Evansville Defendants' Objection. [Filing No. 218.] Pursuant to the Magistrate J udge's Order, [Filing No. 212 at 5], Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, and 7 is GRANTED. The City is ORDERED to comply within fourteen days of the date of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/20/2016. (BRR)
|
|
Filing
212
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 174 Motion to Compel Certain "Post-Incident" Discovery from Defendant City of Evansville. (SEE ORDER) Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 6/6/2016. (NRN)
|
|
Filing
210
ORDER - Plaintiffs' 206 Objection is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court REMANDS this matter to the magistrate judge for further findings and to elaborate the basis for his decision, such that this Court can apply the requisite standard of review should Plaintiffs renew their objection. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/25/2016. (GSO)
|
|
Filing
157
ORDER denying 134 Motion for Protective Order. For the foregoing reasons, the City's Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Defendant will have fourteen (14) days from this entry to correspond with Plaintiffs and set a time for the taking of these depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 1/27/2016. (TMB)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. [Filing No. 126.] Because the Court has ruled on this issue, it rejects Defendants Wise and Jones' ar gument that the upcoming settlement conference scheduled for February 19, 2016 should be continued. [Filing No. 138.] The assigned Magistrate Judge will address the timing of that conference, the pending Motion to Vacate Case Management Plan deadlines, [Filing No. 139], and any other scheduling requests at the telephonic conference set for February 2, 2016, [Filing No. 144]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/26/2016. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
112
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants Zachary Jones and Matthew Wise's Motion for Joinder, [Filing No. 72], and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Mot ion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, [Filing No. 69]. No final judgment shall issue at this time. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an Initial Statement of Claims by November 9, 2015, setting forth which claims they intend to pursue in light of the Court's Order, specifically identifying which defendants they are pursuing each claim against. The Court makes the following rulings on arguments presented by the parties' motions. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/6/2015. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION. The Court GRANTS the Defendants' requests to join Defendant Wise and Jones' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Qualified HIPAA Protective Order. [Filing No. 65; Filing No. 67.] The Court SUSTAINS Defendants' Objection, [Filing No. 64], and VACATES the previously issued Qualified HIPAA Protective Order, [Filing No. 60]. The Court will issue an Amended Protective Order that does not contain Paragraphs 3(b), 3(d), and 3(e) of the previously issued Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/24/2015. (BGT)
|
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.
