Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Deutz Corporation et al
| Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. |
| Deutz Corporation and Deutz AG |
| 5:2008cv00074 |
| January 11, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Akron Office |
| Wayne |
| David D. Dowd |
| Contract Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute |
| 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
297
Judgment Entry that for the reasons contained in the Order 295 filed contemporaneously with this Judgment Entry, the motion of defendants' Deutz Corporation and Deutz AG to dismiss plaintiff Rayco's remaining claims is Granted. This case is closed, each party to bear their own costs and attorney fees. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 5/31/2011. (M,De)
|
|
Filing
192
Judgment Entry that for the reasons contained in the memorandum opinions and orders 191 filed contemporaneously with this entry, the Deutz defendants' motions for summary judgment against plaintiff Rayco Manufacturing, Inc. (ECF [138 ]) and intervening plaintiff Fecon, Inc. (ECF 142 ) are granted in part and denied in part; and for the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinions and orders (See ECF 180 and 185 ), defendants' motions for summary judgment aga inst Rayco and Fecon are Denied in part with respect to the engines which were the subject of the deposition testimony of Aaron Wade Taylor, Thomas Cole, John Orban, and John Dukes, and with respect to the engines described in the declarations of Ch ris Howard and Bill Gourley; and for the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinion and order contemporaneously filed with this judgment entry, defendants' motions for summary judgment against Rayco and Fecon are Granted in part wit h respect to all engines which are the subject of this lawsuit, except those engines for which the Court denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment, as described supra. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 11/3/2010. (M,De)
|
|
Filing
180
Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding 138 and 142 Joint Motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is Denied in Part. The Deutz defendants' motions for summary judgment against Rayco and Fecon are denied with respect to the engines identified in the deposition testimony of Aaron Wade Taylor, Thomas Cole, John Orban, and John Dukes, who personally used the machines and were operating the machines when the Deutz engines failed. This case will proceed to trial on all of plaintiffs' claims only with respect to these engines. As to all of the other failed engines which are the subject of this lawsuit, the Court defers ruling on defendants' motions for summary j udgment at this time. This case shall proceed to trial on the limited basis described in this order on standby basis for the two-week period beginning November 15, 2010. At this time, the Court has two criminal cases scheduled to commence trial on November 15, 2010. If those criminal cases proceed to trial, then the Court will impanel the jury for this case immediately after the impanelment of the juries for the criminal cases. The trial in this case will then commence upo n the conclusion of the criminal trials. If the criminal cases do not proceed to trial, then the Court will both impanel the jury and commence the trial of this case on November 15, 2010. The Court will apprise counsel as information develops rega rding the status of the criminal cases. Further, the Court intends allocate a specific amount of time to the plaintiffs (both Rayco and Fecon together) and defendants (both Deutz and Deutz AG together) to try this case on the limited basis describ ed herein. The time that will be allocated to each side excludes opening statements and closing arguments, but includes direct and cross examination. No later than Friday, October 22, 2010, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants should advis e the Court how much time in minutes they calculate will be needed to present their respective evidence in this case. Lastly, trial briefs, including proposed jury instructions and interrogatories, must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on November 5, 2010. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 10/19/2010. (M,De)
|
|
Filing
131
Memorandum Opinion and Order overruling Plaintiff Rayco's Objections 129 and Affirming Magistrate Judge Pearson's Memorandum and Opinion and Order 128 with the understanding that Rayco shall be permitted to re-file its motion fo r leave to take more than ten depositions, if necessary, after Deutz AG has provided further information to plaintiffs as set forth below in this Order; and after Rayco has had the opportunity to discover documents sufficient to enable Rayco to be mo re specific as to which Deutz customers and which Rayco/Fecon customers it needs to depose as part of the discovery process. Deutz AG shall accomplish the following by 12:00 Noon on January 22, 2010: (a). With respect to each of the five Deutz AG e mployee witnesses identified in its Answers to Interrogatories, specify as to which of the 23 or more topics identified by Rayco such witness has knowledge and (b). Designate its Rule 30(b)(6) representative(s) and set out specifically the matters on which each person so designated will testify. Rayco's Motion for sanctions (Related Doc # 77 ) is Denied; Fecon's Motion for sanctions (Related Doc # 83 ) is Denied; and Deutz USA's Motion for award of attorney fees and expenses (R elated Doc # 84 ) is Denied. To the extent that the last sentence of Rayco's Third Notice of Discovery Dispute filed November 4, 2009 (ECF 115 ) can be construed as a motion for sanctions, the motion is Denied. The Court reminds the parties that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court intends to adhere to the case management schedule set forth in its Order filed October 27, 2009 (ECF 112 ). The parties are encouraged to review ECF 112 and to recognize that the April 30th fact discovery cut-off date is fast approaching. Lastly, the parties engaged in private mediation at an earlier stage in these proceedings and the case could not be successfully resolved at that time. However, the parties have now conducted a substantial amount of discovery and, if all parties wish to again pursue mediation in an effort to resolve this matter, they should so notify the Court. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 1/14/2010. (M,De)
|
|
Filing
128
Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding Rayco's 124 Fourth Notice of Discovery Dispute. On 12/4/2009, Plaintiff Rayco sought permission "to take more than ten (10) depositions collectively in this case notwithstanding the (10) ten depositions per side limit in Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 30(a)(2)." Accordingly, Rayco's motion for leave to depose greater than 10 witnesses is denied. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/10/2009. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
123
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Based upon the foregoing, the noticed discovery disputes are resolved (ECF Nos. 113 , 115 , and 117 ) and the attendant motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 115 , and 117 ) are hereby granted. The matter noticed in ECF No. 113 will be considered moot, pursuant to Deutz's plans to withdraw described above. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 11/25/2009. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
26
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant Deutz's Motion to transfer venue (Related Doc # 16 ). The Case Management Conference that has been scheduled for 7/3/2008, at 1:00 p.m. shall proceed as scheduled. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr on 6/12/2008.(P,G)
|
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 Ohio Northern 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.
