ARNOLD v. CMC ENGINEERING, et al

Filing 367

ORDER granting 365 Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of 363 Omnibus Discovery Order and providing clarifications as stated more fully in order. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 5/26/11. (map)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ex rei.
AUGUST W. ARNOLD,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 03 1580

v.
CMC ENGINEERING, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before

the

reconsideration
order.

[Doc.

court

and/or
No.

plaintiffs'

is

clarification

365].

of

the

file

"a

proposed

court's

directive

resolved t

2011,

order

discovery disputes."

llowing clarif

No.

resolves
353].

instead

all

outstanding
believed

t

circumstances,

discovery

that

the

motions

were

implication

was

of

proposed

the

pending

orders

The court granted

Baker's proposed order without modification,
under

tions:

The parties ignored

filed

ir individual disputes.

reasonable

discovery

the court directed the parties to

which

[Doc.
and

omnibus

for

s motion IS HEREBY GRANTED to the

extent that the court now provides the
On April 27,

motion

and

clear

fendant

as it was the most

stated

rendered

that

that

moot.
that

all

other

The

court

its

omnibus

discovery order

[Doc.

No.

363 J appl ied to all part

s,

not just

defendant Baker.
Paragraph
permits

plaintiffs

defendants'

3

of

30(b) (6)

omnibus

ask

to

t

stions

discovery
"in

ea

r

depositions

of

y

all

s" about any events and occurrences

si

within the six-year statute of limitations period throughout t
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Paragraph

4

of

the

omnibus

discovery

order

permits plaintiffs to conduct discovery of all

clearly

information "

any way related" to the claims contained in their Third Amended
Complaint.

Defendant

Baker's

information related to t

c

Complaint are not dete

request
Amended

is

"in

any

Complaint,

discovery.
discovery,

of

what

The claims enumerated in

k for themselves.

way

constitutes

ims contained in the Third Amended

native.

Third Amended Complaint

examples

related"

to

aintiffs

then

the

If the discovery

claims

are

in

the

Thi

entitled

to

such

The omnibus discovery order was clearly limited to
and

plaintiffs'

contention

that

the

court

took

a

position on substantive issues in entering its omnibus discovery
order is unfounded.
Wi th respect
order,

there

is

determination

that

to

Pa

nothing
the

part

5 of

unreasonable
s

the omnibus discovery
about

protect

the

from

court's

disclosure

the non-public personal information of persons involved in this
matter.

Plaintif
Finally,

years

old and

it

'objections are without merit.
this

court

expects

the

notes
parties

that
to

this

case

complete

is

over

discovery by

July 11, 2011 without any further court intervention.

BY THE COURT:

~--#-=--~_,
.sl
~f,t

cc:

All Counsel of Record

( L\

7

C.J .