OSU alum sues Sports Illustrated over 'Dirty Game' series

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Aug 16, 2012
606
546
643
55
I checked PACER this morning. There are pleadings filed at least weekly, and often daily up through this month. There is a motion for summary judgment that has been filed by the Defendants, and all parties are working to get that motion responded to and ruled upon by the Court. That motion will dictate how this case proceeds. If it is granted, game over. If it is denied, even in part, then the case will go to trial in some manner, or the case will settle. It is moving, and my humble opinion is that all lawyers are very diligent and are quite capable at representing their respective clients interests.
In what court? Does not the document I linked show the summary dismissal was already granted? Was it re-filed in the same court or go somewhere else? Thanks for the follow-up.
 
Nov 8, 2007
101
208
1,593
In what court? Does not the document I linked show the summary dismissal was already granted? Was it re-filed in the same court or go somewhere else? Thanks for the follow-up.
Look earlier in this thread. The case was removed from state court in Oklahoma to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. I gave the case number earlier in this thread.
 
Aug 16, 2012
606
546
643
55
Look earlier in this thread. The case was removed from state court in Oklahoma to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. I gave the case number earlier in this thread.
Therein lies my question/confusion. The summary judgement I posted the link to was in Western District. I guess the basic, simple question at this point....did Talley re-file and said re-filing is why you are seeing the activity in court records?
 
Nov 8, 2007
101
208
1,593
The case number is 14-CV-00853. It was filed (removed) to the Federal Court on 8/12/14. All defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on 7/5/17 (docket number 60). Early on in Federal Court, there was a motion to dismiss that was granted, but the Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint. He did so, and they are at the summary judgment stage on his amended complaint. As to re-filing, I am not aware.
 
Aug 16, 2012
606
546
643
55
The case number is 14-CV-00853. It was filed (removed) to the Federal Court on 8/12/14. All defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on 7/5/17 (docket number 60). Early on in Federal Court, there was a motion to dismiss that was granted, but the Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint. He did so, and they are at the summary judgment stage on his amended complaint. As to re-filing, I am not aware.
Got it. Thanks. What I posted would have been the "early on" motion you mention as it was in 2/15 and while maybe legalese incorrect by calling it a re-filing, but the opportunity to keep moving forward was afforded and exercised. thanks.
 

Jostate

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
16,396
12,814
1,743
It's summer and whatnot. So I'm pretending to be working, while doing a little research.

Here's the latest on the ongoing attempt by our legal system's attempt to outlast my grudge. Although my grudge may still have plenty of life expectancy left, the defendant may be more focused on John Talley's life expectancy at this point.

This was as of February of this year. BTW next week marks the 4 year anniversary of this case. It looks, to an outsider, like the latest battle was whether or not Talley could use his expert witness and debate over whether some specific testimony is admissible. From what I gather the good guys won this small battle.


Talley v. Time Inc (5:14-cv-00853)


https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5147937/talley-v-time-inc/



For these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Harper’s anticipated testimony regarding the expert opinions stated in his report is generally admissible, and should not be excluded. Any impermissible testimony should be the subject of contemporaneous objections at trial.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Daubert Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 64] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2018.
 
Last edited: