Laney v. Getty et al
| E. Scott Laney |
| Borne Investigations, Inc., Richard A. Getty, Albert W. Borne, Stoner Mill Farm, LLC and The Getty Law Group, PLLC |
| 5:2012cv00306 |
| October 1, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Lexington Office |
| Fayette |
| Danny C. Reeves |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| Employee Polygraph Protection 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
136
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Plaintiff Laney's motion for costs and attorneys' fees under Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq. 122 is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff will be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $54,266.58 and costs in the amount of $5,079.50. 2. Plaintiff Laney's bill of costs 121 is DISALLOWED as redundant with the motion for costs and attorneys' fees 122 . 3. Plaintiff Laney's motion to deem his motion for costs to have the same effect as a Rule 59 motion 130 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 10/14/2014. (STC)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
126
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Dfts' 120 JOINT MOTION to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on August 25, 2014.(AWD) cc: COR
|
|
Filing
117
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) judgment is GRANTED in favor of pla; (2) DENYING dfts' 110 Motion for costs; (3) clerk is directed to SEAL Record No 29-4 & 60-9; within 5 days the dfts are directed to FILE a version of this transcript that complies w/court's redaction policies; (4) a separate judgment shall issue. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 6/23/14.(KJR)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Dfts Albert W. Borne, Borne Investigations, Inc., Richard A. Getty, Stoner Mill Farm, LLC and The Getty Law Group, PLLC's 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Dft's motion for summary judgment on Pl a's 2002(1) claim is DENIED. Additionally, Pla's claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2) Pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the FRCP, parites are NOTIFIED that Pla may be entitled to summary judgment on his 29 U.S.C. 2002(1) claim . Parties are DIRECTED to file supp briefs re this issue w/in 14 days as noted. 3) W/in 14 days, Pla is DIRECTED to file a separate Memo outlining costs incurred prior to the date that offer of Judgment was made. Dfts shall be given 7 days thereafter to object to Pla's Memo. 4) Dfts' 61 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Health Evidence, 62 MOTION to Exclude Evidence of Prior Polygraphs, 63 MOTION in Limine to Preclude any Reference to or Insinuation of a Fraudulent ly Manufactured Email and 64 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Relationship Evidence are DENIED as moot. 5) Pla's 65 MOTION to Strike is DENIED as moot. 6) Trial of this matter is CANCELED, subject to intervening orders. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 05/05/2014. (KLB) cc: COR,D,JC
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) GRANTING pla's requests contained in his responses to the dfts' motions for s/j at DE 33 & 32 ; the parties shall be allowed additional time for discovery until 12/31/13; parties are advised that any reuq ests for more time to complete discovery will be disfavored & unlikely granted; (2) DENYING dfts Albert W. Borne, Borne Investigations, Richard Getty & The Getty Law Group's 29 MOTION for Summary; (3) DENYING dfts' Stoner Mill Farm's 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 12/12/13.(KJR)cc: COR
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
