Cisco v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Plaintiff: Roger Cisco
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case Number: 2:2012cv00739
Filed: March 16, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office: Charleston Office
County: Mingo
Presiding Judge: John T. Copenhaver
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers Liability
Cause of Action: 45:51
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 19, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 269 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 243 MOTION for leave to file supplemental Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures; granting the 251 MOTION to Exclude to the extent that Mr. Stevens is compelled to make Dr. Fried available for depositio n by 10/3/2014, and otherwise denied; granting the 253 MOTION for Protective Order; Mr. Stevens need not respond to the fourth request for production of documents; granting the 263 MOTION to file a surreply, and with the proposed surreply filed today. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/19/2014. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
April 17, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 221 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 151 JOINT MOTION for consolidation of Cases 2:12-cv-0739 and 2:12-cv-0740; the two cases are consolidated for all purposes up to and including trial, with the Cisco matter designated as the lead acti on and all further filings in both cases to be made therein; the scheduling order in the Stevens matter is vacated, with the remaining deadlines for case events, conferences, and trial to proceed according to the schedule in Cisco; denying defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company's 147 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/17/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
July 2, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 120 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company's 109 MOTION to disqualify plaintiff's counsel due to an impermissible conflict of interest; and the motion to withdraw as counsel in the Stevens (Civil Action No. 2:12-740) matter is granted. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/2/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
July 11, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 28 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot defendant's 8 MOTION to Dismiss the original complaint and for a more definite statement; granting Cisco's 21 MOTION to amend the 4/27/2012 13 amended complaint; directing that the secon d amended complaint is filed; and denying without prejudice, as being moot, defendant's 14 MOTION to Dismiss the amended complaint. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/11/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq) (Modified on 7/11/2012 to note the #21 motion to amend is granted) (skh).
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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cisco v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Roger Cisco
Represented By: James M. Duckworth
Represented By: Joseph M. Farrell, Jr.
Represented By: Robert S. Goggin, III
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
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 [ 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?