Mooradian et al v. FCA US LLC

Filing 62

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/30/17. The Court directs plaintiff Frey not to include confidential discovery documents received in the Mooradian litigation in his complaint without defendant's approval. This order is not intended to prevent plaintiffs from citing to any documents in their dispositive motions or any other relevant filing. (Related Doc. 58 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
DONNA MOORADIAN, et al.
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
vs.
:
:
FCA US, LLC,
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1132
consolidated with
CASE NO. 5:17-cv-2154
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 58]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This Court recently consolidated this case with a similar case brought by Plaintiff Brian
Frey.1 Counsel for all Plaintiffs seeks a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss
attaching confidential discovery documents received in the Mooradian litigation to Plaintiff
Frey’s amended complaint.2 The Court sees no reason for Plaintiff Frey to attach these
documents to his complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 only requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim” that is “simple, concise, and direct.”3
The Court therefore DIRECTS Plaintiff Frey not to include these documents in his
complaint without Defendant’s approval. This order is not intended to prevent Plaintiffs from
citing to any documents in their dispositive motions or any other relevant filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2017

1

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

See Case No. 17-cv-2154, Doc. 14.
Doc. 58. Defendant opposes. Doc. 59. Plaintiffs reply. Doc. 60. The Mooradian Plaintiffs and
Defendant FCA entered into a private contract governing the filing of confidential documents in this case.
See Doc. 34-2. Defendant FCA argues that filing these documents in Frey’s complaint constitutes breach
of contract. See generally Doc. 60-1. The Court does not consider this hypothetical contractual dispute.
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1).
2