Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Morrow et al
| Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London |
| Eugene C. Morrow, Horizon Transport, Inc., Klaus Bermel-Schanz, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Scottsdale Indemnity Company and Alfa Mutual Insurance Company |
| Scottsdale Indemnity Company |
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Alfa Mutual Insurance Company, Eugene C. Morrow and Klaus Bermel-Schanz |
| Scottsdale Indemnity Company |
| Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London |
| 1:2016cv00180 |
| November 10, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Bowling Green Office |
| Adair |
| Greg N. Stivers |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| Defendant |
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
155
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers on 8/5/2019. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (DN 121 ), Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (DN 122 , 123 , 124 ), and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary J udgment (DN 125 ) are DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limit (DN 140 ), Defendants' Motions to Exceed Page Limit (DN 139 , 147 ), and Plaintiff's Motion to File Supplemental Materials (DN 149 ) are GRANTED. cc: Counsel(JWM)
|
|
Filing
135
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 11/1/2018 granting 118 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. No later than 11/19/2018, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff any statements that Bermel-Schanz may have given to Alfa on or about 10/15/2015 regarding the subject accident. cc: Counsel (CDF)
|
|
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 10/6/2017. The motion of Horizon Transport to quash the subpoena issued byMorrow to Brown & Brown DN 80 , is DENIED. The motion of Bermel-Schanz to quash the subpoena issued by Morrow to Brown & Brown, DN 78 , is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. To the extent the motion advocates quashing the subpoena on relevance grounds, the motion is denied. To the extent the motion advocates quashing the subpoena on privilege grounds, the motion is granted in part. Response to subpoena due by 10/23/2017. cc: Counsel(JWM)
|
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 Western 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.
