Holland, et al v. Union Carbide Corp, et al, No. 5:2002cv00006 - Document 45 (W.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting 44 Motion for Leave to Clarify Court's Order of 7/14/2013; see order for specifics. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 8/11/2013. cc:counsel (KJA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:02-CV-00006 CAROL HOLLAND, et al. Plaintiffs v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al. Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Court s Order of July 14, 2013. (Docket No. 44.) Plaintiffs instant Motion was filed July 17, 2013; thus, pursuant to Joint Local Rule 7.1(c), any response was due 21 days thereafter on August 7, 2013. Defendant Union Carbide Company (UCC) has not responded, and the time to do so has now passed. In their instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek an order clarifying whether the parties are permitted to file additional dispositive motions. The Court denied UCC s motion for summary judgment by Order of April 23, 2013. (Docket No. 37.) During the telephonic status conference held July 12, 2013, the Court indicated that UCC would not be permitted to file additional dispositive motions. That is still the Court s position. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Clarify Court s Order of July 14, 2013, (Docket No. 44), is GRANTED as follows: The Court s Order of July 15, 2013, (Docket No. 43), is amended to reflect that Defendant UCC shall not be permitted to file additional dispositive motions in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: cc: August 11, 2013 Counsel Page 1 of 1
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
