Ketre v. Auburn Aquatics, Inc.
ORDERED that 92 Motion is DENIED in part and CONDITIONALLY GRANTED in part as further set out. The parties are ORDERED to revise their contentions in the proposed pretrial order accordingly. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/26/2009. (cb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION G E R T R U D E KETRE, P la in tif f , v. A U B U R N AQUATICS SWIM P R O G R A M ., et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 3:07-cv-536-MEF
(W O - DO NOT PUBLISH)
T h is cause is before the Court on the Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Pretrial O rd e r Contentions (Doc. # 92) filed in this case by Defendant Auburn Aquatics Swim P ro g ra m . This Court has careful considered the arguments advanced in support of and in o p p o sitio n to the motion made both in writing and orally at the pretrial. It is hereby O R D E R E D that the motion is DENIED in part and CONDITIONALLY GRANTED in part. The motion is DENIED with respect to contentions that Auburn Aquatics failed to warn a b o u t any condition related to the mat or that Auburn Aquatics failed to inspect the facility. The motion is GRANTED with respect to contentions that Auburn Aquatics failed to conduct a pre-meet safety inspection and that Auburn Aquatics failed to have safety officials at the m e e t. The parties are ORDERED to revise their contentions in the proposed pretrial order a c c o r d i n g l y. DONE this the 26th day of March, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?