Otoski et al v. Avidyne Corporation et al
| Emily C. Otoski, Nathan Otoski, Matthew Otoski and Shannon Lee |
| Avidyne Corporation and Cessna Aircraft Company |
| United States of America |
| Avidyne Corporation |
| 3:2009cv03041 |
| May 8, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Klamath |
| Paul Papak |
| Defendant |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| Defendant |
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
145
AMENDED ORDER: Otoski' s Motion 101 is Granted in part and Denied in part. Exhibits 1-7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18-21 will remain under seal in their entirety. Exhibits 8, 12, 14-15, 17, 22 and 23 will be unsealed, with the exception of the following specified pages which will remain under seal: Exhibit 17 - page Avidyne32847; Exhibit 21 - pages Avidyne27474 and 27477; Exhibit 23 - page Avidyne32853. Exhibit 54 will remain unsealed in its redacted form. All supporting memoranda that r efer to these sealed exhibits will remain sealed, including Otoski' s Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 99 , and Otoski's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remove Confidential Designations 104 . Docket entry 100 will remain sealed as a whole and docket entry 144 shall be sealed by the clerk. Plaintiff is instructed to refile electronic copies of the unsealed exhibits in a separate entry on the court's CM/ECF system. Signed on 12/13/10 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 90 . Cessna's Motion for Summary Judgment 50 is granted because Otoski's claims against it are precluded as a matter of law by the bankruptcy court's November 28, 2007 Order. Otoski's Motion for Leave to conduct destructive examination 65 is granted becasue Cessna is no longer a party to the action, rendering its objections moot. Signed on 11/15/10 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (ljl)
|
|
Filing
90
Findings & Recommendation: Cessna's Motion for Summary Judgment 50 should be granted because Otoski's claims against it are precluded as a matter of law by the bankruptcy court's November 28, 2007 Order. Otoski's (Corrected) Motion for Leave to Conduct Destructive Examination 65 should be granted because Cessna is no longer a party to the action, rendering its objections moot. Signed on 10/6/10 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
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 Oregon 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.
