HEAGY et al v. BURLINGTON STORES, INC., et al

Filing 71

ORDER THAT BURLINGTON'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 11/17/21. 11/18/21 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(JL )

Case 2:20-cv-02447-CMR Document 71 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2

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

CATHERINE HEAGY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2447

BURLINGTON STORES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of November 2021, upon consideration of Burlington’s
Motion for a Protective Order [Doc. No. 64], and for the reasons discussed in the accompanying
memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Burlington’s motion is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
1. Burlington’s request to prohibit Plaintiffs from propounding further written discovery
is DENIED without prejudice.
2. Burlington’s request to prohibit Plaintiffs from pursuing additional depositions is
DENIED without prejudice.
3. Burlington’s request for all depositions to proceed by Zoom or at Burlington’s
counsel’s office is DENIED without prejudice. The parties are hereby ORDERED
to confer with deponents regarding their wishes and schedule depositions in person or
via Zoom in accordance with the deponents’ wishes.
4. Burlington’s request to quash Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition is
GRANTED.

Case 2:20-cv-02447-CMR Document 71 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 66], and for the reasons
discussed in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’
motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
1. Plaintiffs’ request to compel Burlington to produce summaries and statistics regarding
slip-and-fall incidents at all Burlington stores and at the store where Plaintiff fell is
DENIED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs’ request to compel Burlington to produce tile floor risk assessments and
inspection reports is GRANTED. Burlington is hereby ORDERED to produce this
information within twenty-one (21) days.
3. Plaintiffs’ request to compel Burlington to produce written job descriptions is
DENIED with prejudice.
4. Plaintiffs’ request to compel Burlington to produce Nicole Pagan’s contact
information is DISMISSED as moot.
5. Plaintiffs’ request to compel Burlington to refrain from offering to represent former
employees in depositions is DENIED with prejudice.
6. Plaintiffs’ request to compel Jason Curnow to answer a question posed at his
deposition is DENIED with prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

2