OHNTRUP et al v. MAKINA VE KIMYA ENDUSTRISI KURUMU et al

Filing 226

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTARY RELIEF AGAINST ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, INC. IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTARY RELIEF IN THE FORM OF AN ORDER ENJOINING ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. IS DENIED; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTARYT RELIEF IN THE FORM OF AN ORDER REQUIRING ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY IS GRANTED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LOUIS H. POLLAK ON 2/27/2012. 2/29/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(kk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEVERLY OHNTRUP, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 76-742

MAKINA ve KIMYA ENDUSTRISI
KURUMU, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM/ORDER
On February 3, 2012, the Honorable M. Faith Angell, United States Magistrate
Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation concerning the Motion for Supplementary
Relief in Aid of Execution filed by Plaintiff on November 14, 2011. Now pending before
the court are Plaintiff’s Objections and Exceptions to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, filed on February 13, 2012.
Upon de novo review, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), I find Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation unpersuasive. In particular, the requested relief is outside
the scope of summary proceedings permitted under Rule 3118 of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, in the Order that follows, the Report and
Recommendation will be adopted in its entirety.

AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the Report
and Recommendation of the Honorable M. Faith Angell, United States Magistrate Judge;
Plaintiff’s Objections and Exceptions to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation; and Alliant Techsystems Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Request for Supplementary Relief against Alliant Techsystems,
Inc. is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

(3)

Plaintiff’s motion for supplementary relief in the form of an Order
enjoining Alliant Techsystems Inc. is DENIED;

(4)

Plaintiff’s motion for supplementary relief in the form of an Order requiring
Alliant Techsystems Inc. to provide discovery is GRANTED as follows:
(a)

Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is to provide
proposed revised discovery requests directed to Alliant Techsystems
Inc.;

(b)

Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Alliant Techsystems
Inc. is to provide a proposed protective order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Louis H. Pollak
Pollak, J.

2