Bavlsik v. General Motors LLC
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 29, 2016
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant for judgment as a matter of law (Doc. 198 ) is sustained. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(c) (1) that, if the Unite d States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reverses the courts judgment in favor of defendant as a matter of law, the motion of plaintiffs for a new trial (Doc. 196 ) is sustained only on the issue of future damages for plaintiff Michael Bavlsik, M.D. and on all damages for plaintiff Kathleen Skelly. An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 1/29/16. (JAB)
|October 9, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING CHOICE OF LAW: The court issues this memorandum opinion to explain its reasons for choosing to apply the substantive law of Missouri as the appropriate rules of decision in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1652. Plaintiffs argued for Missouri law (Doc. 103 ) and defendant argued that Minnesota law should apply (Doc. 126 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 10/9/15. (JAB)
|August 18, 2015
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER :IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 65 ) to exclude the testimony of defendant's expert Jeya Padmanaban is sustained in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion (Do c. 71 ) to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Joseph Burton, M.D., is denied.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion (Doc. 72 ) to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Larry Sicher is denied.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 8/18/15. (KKS)
|October 1, 2014
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant (Doc. 31) to quash the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and its request that the court strike plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Sicher (Doc. 39 at 10) are denied. While plaintiffs have not alleged in their complaint a factually plausible claim based upon the seatbelt present in the subject vehicle, the record indicates the parties' positions, taken during pretrial discovery, that there is a basis for believing that the subj ect seatbelt played a part in the alleged injury. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motion of plaintiffs (Doc. 35) to compel production of documents by defendant is denied without prejudice. The requests for information are excessively broad and not reason ably focused on the vehicle involved in the alleged incident. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs (Doc. 43) to compel defendant to answer interrogatories is denied without prejudice. During the hearing the parties agreed to discuss and agree to the exchange of expert witness compensation or consideration, in amounts related to work in this case, and for the past five years the frequency of their employment or retention in other cases either by defendants or by plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs (Doc. 46) for sanctions and to strike the deposition of Anthony Melocchi is denied. During the hearing the court expressed its conclusion that whether or not in deponent Melocchi's personal opi nion defendant "ha[d] a responsibility to design its vehicles to protect occupants in a foreseeable accident" is not relevant to a claim of either strict liability or negligent product defect, and is inadmissible on the issue of witness bias under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because any probative value in an answer to the question is outweighed by undue prejudice, especially in the highly governmentally and industrially regulated area of motor vehicle design. The parties may reco nvene Mr. Melocchi's deposition and conclude it without the participation of the court. However, at the parties' request, the court may agree to preside over the deposition either in the courtroom or by remote audio-video conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the current trial and final pretrial conference settings are vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that not later than October 14, 2014, the parties must file with the court a joint proposed scheduling plan for the conclusion of all discovery and the jury trial of this action. ( Joint Scheduling Plan due by 10/14/2014.) Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 10/1/2014. (KMS)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?