Smith et al v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al
Deborah Smith and Michael Smith |
Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and Ethicon, Inc., |
3:2008cv00245 |
April 15, 2008 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability Office |
XX US, Outside State |
James C. Sumner |
Henry T. Wingate |
None |
Diversity |
28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 148 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 93 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 114 Motion to Strike; granting 117 Motion to Strike; granting 118 Motion to Strike; granting in part and denying in part 120 Motion to Strike; denying 141 Motion for Discovery; denying 145 Motion to Review Magistrate Judge Orders. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 8/31/2011 (SM) |
Filing 139 ORDER re: hearing conducted on 1/14/2010. Denying Defendants' 58 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Purported Designation of Expert Witnesses; granting Plaintiffs' 77 Motion to Extend Time to Serve Expert Reports; and, granting in part 122 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Discovery. Defendants to submit Affidavit of Costs incurred in relation to Plaintiffs' untimely expert designations. A status conference will be conducted by the undersigned to determine the appropriate scheduling deadlines and discovery parameters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 3/16/2010. (ACF) |
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 Mississippi 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.