McCarthy et al v. Taser International, Inc. et al
Filing
116
ORDER that defendants motions for summary judgment re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Dewitt F. McCarleys Motion to Quash Motion re 105 are scheduled for such further proceedings as herein provided at calendar call. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 6/18/2014. (eef)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:12-cv-00838-MOC-DSC
VICTOR WILLIAMS AND TEMAKO
MCCARTHY, as co-administrators of the Estate
of La-Reko Williams,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
MICHAEL FORBES, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the court on defendants’ motions for summary judgment and
non-party Dewitt F. McCarley’s Motion to Quash Subpoena. The court has fully considered the
motions for summary judgment and has done extensive work toward resolving those motions.
However, before deciding those motions, the court will conduct a brief hearing at which it will
listen to the audio tapes of any 911 calls, recorded dispatch traffic, and the Officer’s DMVR.
Defendants will be responsible for assembling such material, having transcripts that track such
recordings, and having the audio ready to play at calendar call. After hearing such material the
court will have a brief discussion with counsel concerning the merits of the dispositive motions
and then make its decision. If the action survives, the court will resolve the Motion to Quash and
then move on to selection of a jury.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendants’ motions for summary judgment
(#50 & #54) and Dewitt F. McCarley’s Motion to Quash Motion (#105) are scheduled for such
further proceedings as herein provided at calendar call.
Signed: June 18, 2014
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?