Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yogesh Patel et al v. Havana Bar

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


December 2, 2011

YOGESH PATEL ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HAVANA BAR, RESTAURANT AND CATERING DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants' "Motion for Sanctions" (Doc. No. 23), the responses and supplements thereto, Plaintiff's "Cross-Motion for Sanctions" (Doc. No. 25), the responses and supplements thereto, after a sanctions hearing held on February 22, 2011, and for reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: - Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: - Defendants' requests for the following sanctions are GRANTED, as follows: - An adverse inference instruction regarding the spoliation of the 2008 witness statements will be given at trial; - The following witnesses may be re-deposed at cost to Plaintiff: Mukti Patel, Anish Shah, Raman Nijhawan, Shaheen Nijhawan, and Umar Anjum. Plaintiff shall pay for the court reporter, and upon completion of the depositions, Defendants shall submit to the Court a reasonable request for attorneys' fees incurred as a result of these re-depositions;

- Defendants are awarded attorneys' fees and costs for the time and effort expended to obtain discovery regarding the 2008 witness statements and any fees or costs related to the belated production of the 2010 statements and the police report, including the sanctions hearing and motions practice before this Court.*fn1

- Defendants' remaining requests for sanctions are DENIED. - Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: - Plaintiff's request for an adverse inference instruction regarding the spoliation of the video recording is GRANTED. - Plaintiff's remaining requests for sanctions are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadlines set forth in the January 31, 2011 Stipulated Order (Doc. No. 28) are vacated. A new scheduling order is implemented as follows:

- Counsel are directed to contact Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo's chambers on or before December 19, 2011 to schedule a settlement conference.

- All fact discovery shall be completed by January 16, 2012. - Plaintiffs shall produce their expert reports by February 13, 2012. Defendants shall produce their expert reports by March 5, 2012. Plaintiff's expert witness rebuttal reports (if necessary) shall be produced by March 19, 2012. All expert discovery, including all depositions of expert witnesses, shall be completed by April 9, 2012. - Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to the issues of liability and/or damages shall, within the time required for the submission of expert discovery set forth above, serve opposing parties with concise details and/or documents covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses, including the identity of each witness offering the lay opinion, the substance and the basis for each opinion. - All motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions shall be filed no later than April 30, 2012. - Responses to motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, if any, shall be filed no later than May 28, 2012. - All further deadlines will be set pending the outcome of dispositive motions.

BY THE COURT:

Mitchell S. Goldberg


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.