Martin v. The Cincinnati Incsurance CO.
| Anthony Martin |
| The Cincinnati Insurance Company |
| 4:2017cv00142 |
| January 10, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Ronnie L. White |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 12 U.S.C. ยง 635 |
| Plaintiff |
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
55
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Compel which the Court held in abeyance (ECF Nos. 25 , 33 , and 34 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the following previously withheld documents: [SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS]. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on July 13, 2018. (BRP)
|
|
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 25 ) and Supplemental Motion to Compel (ECF No. 33 ) are DENIED without prejudice with respect to Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 17 and 18 an d HELD IN ABEY AN CE pending in camera review of the responsive documents with respect to Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 6, 11 - 14, and 19- 20, and Interrogatory No. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Motion to Com pel (ECF No. 34 ) is DENIED as to First Supplemental Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 and HELD IN ABEYANCE as to First Supplemental Interrogatory No. 3 pending in camera review. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant shall, no later than June 11, 2018, su bmit to the Court for in camera review the documents it seeks to withhold from discovery based upon the assertion of attorney-client and work-product privilege consistent with this Memorandum and Order. ( Response to Court due by 6/11/2018.) Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 06/04/2018. (KCB)
|
|
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 25 ), Motion to Supplement Motion to Compel (ECF No. 33 ) , and Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 34 ) are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of Frank Jacobs (ECF No. 35 ) is GRANTED consistent with this Memorandum and Order. The Court will reset this case for trial by separate Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on May 31, 2018. (BRP)
|
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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Martin v. The Cincinnati Incsurance CO. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Anthony Martin | |
| Represented By: | Michael L. Knepper |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: The Cincinnati Insurance Company | |
| 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.
