Samuelson v. ArcelorMittal USA LLC
Filing
45
OPINION AND ORDER granting (31 in 2:13-cv-00440-JVB-PRC) MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Certain Discovery filed by ArcelorMittal USA LLC. The Court orders that this case and Babjak be consolidated for the purpose of conducting the overlapping depositions only. The Court INSTRUCTS the parties to continue to file all future motions in both cases under separate cause numbers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 6/16/2015. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
Estate of MICHAEL SAMUELSON by
STEPHANIE SAMUELSON, Personal
Representative,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARCELORMITTAL USA, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No.:
2:13-CV-440-JVB-PRC
2:15-CV-40-JVB-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Consolidation for Purposes of Certain
Discovery [DE 31], filed on March 24, 2015. The motion seeks to consolidate this case with Babjak
v. KT-Grant, Inc., et al. (2:15-CV-40) for the purpose of conducting about ten to twelve overlapping
depositions. The Court issued an order on March 26, 2015, in which it found the request well taken
in the main and took it under advisement in order to determine if discovery in this case could be
extended in such a way that did not cause excessive delay and also ensured that the Babjaks were
not prejudiced. The Court held a telephonic hearing on the issue on June 11, 2015, and an agreeable
solution was arrived at. The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion for Consolidation for Purposes
of Certain Discovery [DE 31] and ORDERS that this case and Babjak be consolidated for the
purpose of conducting the overlapping depositions only. The Court INSTRUCTS the parties to
continue to file all future motions in both cases under separate cause numbers.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2015.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?