Sanchez et al v. Hankook Tire Co., Ltd.,
| Inelda Gutierrez Pradines and Julio Sanchez |
| Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., |
| 8:2015cv00142 |
| April 24, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Laurie Smith Camp |
| F.A. Gossett |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| None |
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
134
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - The Stipulation for Dismissal, ECF No. 133 , is approved. The above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court will not assess costs or attorney's fees. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (KLF)
|
|
Filing
108
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (ECF No. 67 ) is granted in part as follows: All parties are precluded, in limine, from presenting evidence or argument in the presence of the jury referencing the filing of motions in lim ine or the Court's ruling on them; reading or presenting objections or commentary of counsel made during depositions if such objections have been ruled upon by the Court prior to the presentation of the deposition testimony; attacking the integr ity of opposing counsel or making reference to alleged improper conduct by opposing counsel during the course of litigation; making reference to pre-judgment or post-judgment interest or any other enhancement that may apply to any award of damages; a ttempting to invoke local prejudice; depicting opposing expert witnesses in a manner that does not fairly represent their appearance at the time of their depositions; suggesting that Hankook was named as a defendant due to its ability to pay a moneta ry judgment; presenting statistical data lacking proper and sufficient foundation, or not timely disclosed; or presenting expert opinions, or materials relied upon by experts in reaching their opinions, if not timely disclosed. The Motion is otherwis e denied, without prejudice to the assertion of objections at the time of trial. The Motion in Limine submitted by Defendant Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., at ECF No. 68 is granted, and Plaintiffs are precluded, in limine, from offering evidence or argume nt concerning, or making any reference to, accidents involving tires manufactured by third parties. The Motion in Limine submitted by Defendant Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., at ECF No. 70 is granted in part as follows: Plaintiffs are precluded, in limine , from offering evidence or argument concerning, making any reference to, liability insurance; eliciting hearsay evidence through expert testimony, or questioning experts about documents not produced during discovery; making reference to written expe rt, medical, or causation opinions or reports without proper and sufficient foundation; presenting testimony or other evidence about Troy Cottles's 2009 inspection of the Hankook manufacturing plant in Korea; inquiring of the jury during voir di re on matters related to jurors' willingness to award damages at specific levels; suggesting Hankook or its representatives lack compassion; referring to Hankooks ability to pay an award of damages, or any offers or negotiations to settle or com promise any claims; suggesting that the Plaintiffs or their representatives are acting in the interest of the community at large; or referring to any other lawsuits involving Hankook. The Motion is otherwise denied, without prejudice to the assertion of objections at the time of trial. The Motion in Limine submitted by Defendant Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., at ECF No. 72 is granted, and Plaintiffs are precluded, in limine, from offering evidence of argument concerning, or making any reference to, o ther accidents involving Hankook tires. The parties will contact the Courtroom Deputy, Mary Roundtree, at 402-661-7375, to schedule a hearing with respect to Defendant Hankook Tire Co., Ltd.'s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Tire Expert, Troy Cottles, in Limine submitted by Defendant Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., at ECF No. 77 . Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (KLF)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER AMENDING FINAL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF CASE - that paragraph 4 of the Order Setting Final Schedule for Progression of Case (Filing No. 24 ) dated October 19, 2015, and paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the Order Amending Final Schedule for Progress ion of Case (Filing No. 47 ) dated April 22, 2016, are hereby amended. The October 24, 2016, pretrial conference and the November 15, 2016, trial dates will remain as scheduled. The Unopposed Motion to Amend Order Setting Final Schedule for Progression of Case (Filing No. 56 ) is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (KLF)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER AMENDING FINAL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF CASE, granting 46 the Joint Motion to Amend. The deadlines are amended as set out. The 10/24/2016 pretrial conference and 11/15/2016 jury trial dates remain as scheduled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (ARL, )
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER AMENDING THE EXPERT WITNESS DEADLINES - The motion 33 is granted, and paragraph 3 in the Order Setting Final Schedule for Progression of Case 24 of October 19, 2015, is hereby amended. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (KLF)
|
|
Filing
20
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 19 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (SLP)
|
|
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett (Filing No. 13) are adopted in their entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Filing No. 6) is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (MBM)
|
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 Nebraska 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.
