Schlueter v. Ingram Barge Company
Plaintiff: Bobby Schlueter
Defendant: Ingram Barge Company
Case Number: 3:2016cv02079
Filed: August 5, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Nashville Office
County: Davidson
Presiding Judge: Aleta A. Trauger
Nature of Suit: Marine
Cause of Action: 46:688
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 187 ORDER regarding trial testimony of Dr. Benjamin Johnson signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 12/9/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)
November 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 88 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Testimony of Scott Giles, D.O. ( 83 ) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/18/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
November 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 82 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Exclude Dr. Benjamin Johnson's Opinions Regarding Diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and Certain Elements of Future Medical Treatment ( 43 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRA NTED to the extent that Dr. Johnson will not be allowed to testify that the plaintiff will need arthroscopic knee surgery in the future or about his future need for prescription medications that have in the past been prescribed by other practitioners for conditions unrelated to CRPS; it is DENIED in all other respects. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Jay Marsh's Opinions Regarding Past and Future Medical Expenses ( 45 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Earl Darst from Offeri ng Certain Expert Testimony on Behalf of the Defendant ( 47 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Testimony of Todd Didion at Trial ( 52 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Ex clude Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Testimony of George A. Barrett at Trial ( 51 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/1/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
October 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 77 MEMORANDUM & ORDER. The defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Loss of Household Services ( 63 ) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the first Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ( 49 ) as superseded by the second. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/1/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Schlueter v. Ingram Barge Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bobby Schlueter
Represented By: Lee J. Bloomfield
Represented By: Paul Mark Ledbetter
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: Ingram Barge Company
Represented By: G. Ray Bratton
Represented By: Elissa M. Mulrooney
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.


Why Is My Information Online?