You are here

Opinions

The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.

3:13-cv-06529

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Ford Motor Company to Produce Documents Listed in its Supplemental ASO (Automotive Safety Office) Privilege Log and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 536)1.1 Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) has filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion, (ECF No. 551), and Plaintiffs have replied, (ECF No. 569). Plaintiffs’ motion relates to 132 documents that Ford has claimed are shielded from discovery due to attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product immunity. (ECF No. 536-7 at 3-68). On August 18, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and ruled that the supplemental privilege log supplied by Ford was insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A). (ECF No. at 591 at 51, 54). This memorandum opinion and order follows the Court’s ruling and confirms that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED insofar as Ford will be required to again supplement its ASO privilege log with more detail describing the documents therein. Ford is ORDERED to provide the updated ASO privilege log to Plaintiffs within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. In addition, Plaintiffs are GRANTED reasonable fees and costs associated with bringing this motion. Plaintiffs are instructed to provide the requisite information regarding fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
2:12-cv-02952

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motions to Clarify)

Pending before the court are defendants’ Objection to PTO # 182 and Motion to Clarify [Docket 27] and plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification Regarding Pretrial Order # 182 [Docket 28]. To the extent these motions seek clarification, they are GRANTED. Below, I address the defendants’ objections and further clarify the scope of the consolidated trial.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:13-cv-25114

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 48]. The Motion, having been fully briefed by the parties, is now ripe for review. Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-03410

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the plaintiff’s Motion for Remand [Docket 6] and the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 8]. These motions, having been fully briefed by the parties, are now ripe for review. As described below, the Motion to Remand [Docket 6] is GRANTED, and the Motion to Dismiss [Docket 8] is DENIED as moot.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
1:15-cv-03833

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. No. 8).  For reasons more fully explained below, the motion for remand is DENIED.1

Author:
David A. Faber
2:13-cv-28892

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Daubert Motions)

Pending before the court are the following motions brought by the defendant: (1) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Niall Galloway, M.D. [Docket 33]; (2) Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Michael Thomas Margolis, M.D. [Docket 34]; (3) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Thomas H. Barker, Ph.D. [Docket 36]; (4) Motion to Limit the Opinions and Testimony of Bobby L. Shull, M.D. [Docket 43]; (5) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Jimmy W. Mays, Ph.D. [Docket 45]; (6) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Peggy Pence, Ph.D. [Docket 46]; (7) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Russell Dunn, Ph.D. [Docket 47]; (8) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Scott Guelcher, Ph.D. [Docket 48]; (9) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of William Porter, M.D. [Docket 49]; (10) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Richard Trepeta, M.D. [Docket 50]; and (11) Motion to Strike and Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Vladimir Iakovlev, M.D. [Docket 55].

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-01517

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, Sever, and Stay, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand)

Pending before the court are the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket 3], the defendants’ Motion to Sever [Docket 5], the defendants’ Motion to Stay [Docket 8], and the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court [Docket 12]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED except as to the two Texas plaintiffs, Rose Kraft and Sandra Huss; the Motion to Sever is DENIED as moot; the Motion to Stay is DENIED as moot; and the Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-00361

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to the parties’ covenant to not compete. (Pls.’ Mot. for a TRO & Prelim. Inj., Writ of Replevin, Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery, & Produc. of Docs. & Things [Docket 5]). For the reasons explained below, the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on this issue is DENIED. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to refer any remaining discovery matters contained in plaintiffs’ motion [Docket 5] to the Magistrate Judge.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:12-cv-08633

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motion in Limine No.9)

Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Evidence or Argument That Boston Scientific Owed or Breached a Duty to Warn Plaintiffs Directly (“Motion in Limine No. 9”). (See BSC’s Initial Mots. in Limine [Docket 374], at ¶ 9). For the reasons set forth below, BSC’s Motion in Limine No. 9 is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:12-cv-08633

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Punitive Damages Claims and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint)

Pending before the court are (1) Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claims [Docket 263];1 and (2) plaintiff Chris Rene Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [Docket 167]. For the reasons below, I FIND that West Virginia law, not Massachusetts law, applies to plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims and that there are genuine disputes of material fact over whether punitive damages are appropriate. Accordingly, I DENY BSC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claims. Because I conclude West Virginia punitive damages law applies here and Ms. Wilson concedes her motion is moot if this is so, I DENY plaintiff Chris Rene Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages