Ehrlich v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Justia Dockets & Filings Tenth Circuit Kansas District Court Ehrlich v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Ehrlich v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Plaintiff:	Mandy Ehrlich
Defendant:	Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Case Number:	2:2013cv02142
Filed:	March 22, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office:	Kansas City Office
County:	Wyandotte
Presiding Judge:	J. Thomas Marten
Presiding Judge:	David J. Waxse
Nature of Suit:	Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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 9, 2014	Filing 68 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant shall produce all train crew members' medical files responsive to Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 3, but limited to the time period five (5) years preceding the date of the incident at issue in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 10/9/2014. (byk)
June 19, 2014	Filing 50 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 39 Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Compel or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to that Motion. The Court, however, will give the partie s additional time to confer about the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 36 ), extends Defendant's deadline for responding to the Motion until July 7, 2014, and instructs/orders counsel for both parties to confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the issues. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 6/19/2014. (byk)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 9, 2014

Filing 68 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant shall produce all train crew members' medical files responsive to Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 3, but limited to the time period five (5) years preceding the date of the incident at issue in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 10/9/2014. (byk)

June 19, 2014

Filing 50 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 39 Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Compel or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to that Motion. The Court, however, will give the partie s additional time to confer about the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 36 ), extends Defendant's deadline for responding to the Motion until July 7, 2014, and instructs/orders counsel for both parties to confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the issues. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 6/19/2014. (byk)

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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ehrlich v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Co.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Mandy Ehrlich
Represented By:	Brian C. Russell
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?