Hill v. St. Onge et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv00329
Filed: May 3, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Columbus Office
Presiding Judge: Mark R. Abel
Presiding Judge: Michael H. Watson
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 112 ORDER deferring ruling on 97 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; denying 100 Defendants' Third Motion in Limine; granting 101 Defendant's Second Motion in Limine; and granting 102 Defendants' First Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 09/01/09. (dh)
August 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 96 Notice scheduling Telephone Status Conference for 8/21/2009 at 2:30 PM before Judge Edmund A Sargus. (dh)
August 18, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 90 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part as moot 63 Defendant's Motion for Protective Orders from Plaintiff's Discovery. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/18/09. (dh)
August 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 86 ORDER scheduling a telephone status conference on 08/12/09 at 1:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/11/09. (dh)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hill v. St. Onge et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?