JAIN v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., 7:13cv00551. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
Number: infdco20141222c18
Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants' motions in limine concerning Dr. Laughery (Dkt. No. 71) and Dr. Collins (Dkt. No. 73) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ; Defendants' objection to the report and recommendation concerning Dr. Arden (Dkt. No. 67) is OVERRULED , the report (Dkt. No. 60) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Arden (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED ; and Defendants' m
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants' motions in limine concerning Dr. Laughery (Dkt. No. 71) and Dr. Collins (Dkt. No. 73) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ; Defendants' objection to the report and recommendation concerning Dr. Arden (Dkt. No. 67) is OVERRULED , the report (Dkt. No. 60) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Arden (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED ; and Defendants' mo..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants' motions in limine concerning Dr. Laughery (Dkt. No. 71) and Dr. Collins (Dkt. No. 73) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Defendants' objection to the report and recommendation concerning Dr. Arden (Dkt. No. 67) is OVERRULED, the report (Dkt. No. 60) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Arden (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED; and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 69) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
