Yeszin et al v. Neolt, S.P.A.

Filing 46

ORDER entered denying as moot 32 Motion to Extend the Scoe of Permissible Discovery. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN YESZIN and PAUL HARRISON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO.: 11-10466

NEOLT, S.P.A., an Italian corporation,

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges injuries caused to Plaintiffs by a drafting table manufactured and
designed by Defendant. In lieu of answering the Complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the
case, alleging the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 14, 2011, the Court entered an
Order [dkt 13] permitting limited discovery on the question of personal jurisdiction over Defendant,
specifically with respect to Defendant’s contacts with the State of Michigan, and the origin of the
drafting table in question.
During a February 28, 2012, hearing before Magistrate Judge Whalen, the Magistrate Judge
ordered, among other things, that the scope of the limited discovery would be limited to the sale of
drafting tables by Neolt anywhere in the U.S. from 1995 to the present.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant motion seeking to extend the scope of permissible
discovery from 1995 back to 1986. Plaintiffs allege that, on March 30, 2012, they made an unexpected
discovery that the drafting table at issue in this case was allegedly manufactured in 1986, rather than
sometime after 1995, as they had previously believed. For this reason, Plaintiffs asked the Court to
expand the scope of discovery to include manufacture and distribution of Neolt drafting tables between
1986 and 1990.

On August 3, 2012, the Court entered its Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The Court made its determination without the need of extending the
scope of discovery to 1986. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion is rendered moot.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expand the Scope of
Permissible Discovery [dkt 32] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 13, 2012

2