Jones v. Horseshoe Casino et al

Filing 54

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 49 Amended MOTION for Protective Order with Amended Exhibit A by Defendant Gasser Chair Company and ORDERING that no party may perform any destructive testing on the chair in which Plaintiff was injured without first ob taining the consent of all other parties or, alternatively, a court order authorizing the testing; DENYING AS MOOT 47 First MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant Gasser Chair Company; and DENYING 48 First MOTION to Lift Stay re 23 Order, by Defendant Gasser Chair Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 6/9/2015. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
GLORIA JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
HORSESHOE CASINO, SUSPA, INC.,
and GASSER CHAIR COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No.: 2:15-CV-14-PPS-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for a Protective Order [DE 47], a Motion to Lift
the Stay [DE 48], and an Amended Motion for a Protective Order [DE 49], all filed on May 14,
2015, by Defendant Gasser Chair Company (Gasser). No responses have been filed, and the time
to do so has passed.
I. Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiff alleges that she was injured at the Horseshoe Casino in Hammond, Indiana, when
a gas cylinder component in the chair she was sitting in failed, causing the seat of the chair to
abruptly descend. Gasser represents that Plaintiff has issued a subpoena to take control of the chair
in order to do testing. Gasser represents that it has made verbal and written requests to Plaintiff’s
counsel, asking for a protocol from Plaintiff’s expert as to what the expert would like to do to the
chair, including any proposed destructive testing. Plaintiff has not responded.
Gasser contends that “Plaintiff should not be able to alter the chair in anyway [sic] without
the express agreement of the Defendants.” DE 49. And it therefore asks that a protective order be
entered requiring all parties to consent to any destructive testing before such testing may be done.
The Court, noting the lack of objection, finds that good cause supports the request. The chair
is a crucial piece of evidence and destructive testing by one party could result in unfairness or

unnecessary expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Court hence GRANTS the Amended Motion
for a Protective Order [DE 49] and ORDERS that no party may perform any destructive testing on
the chair in which Plaintiff was injured without first obtaining the consent of all other parties or,
alternatively, a court order authorizing the testing. The Court DENIES as moot the Motion for a
Protective Order [DE 47].
II. Motion to Lift Stay
Gasser has asked Defendant Horseshoe Casino for video footage of the alleged accident as
well as for leave to inspect the chair in which Plaintiff was hurt. This case is stayed as to Defendant
Horseshoe Casino because it is currently in bankruptcy, and it has accordingly refused to honor these
requests. Gasser asks that the stay be lifted for the limited purpose of Horseshoe Casino producing
the footage and allowing the inspection. The one-page motion, however, does not provide any legal
authority for the propriety of this request, and the Court therefore DENIES the Motion to Lift the
Stay [DE 48].
SO ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2015.

s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE