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.

Judith Schaefer-Condulmari v. Us Airways Group

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


July 18, 2012

JUDITH SCHAEFER-CONDULMARI
v.
US AIRWAYS GROUP, LLC

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of the parties' memorandum and following oral argument held on June 6, 2012 in the above-captioned case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED for the reasons stated in the memorandum of law bearing today's date that:

1. Upon consideration of US Airways' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 68), the response, reply, and supplemental replies thereto, the motion is DENIED.

2. Upon consideration of US Airways' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts Relating to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder And the Standard of Care For Providing Emergency Medical Car On An Aircraft (Docket No. 69), the response, reply, and sur-reply thereto, the motion is GRANTED in part as to Dr. Phillips and DENIED in part as to Dr. Tereo.

3. Upon consideration of US Airways' Motion to Strike Untimely and Improper Supplemental Expert Report of S. Michael Phillips, M.D. (Docket No. 79), and the response and reply thereto, the motion is GRANTED.

4. Upon consideration of US Airways's Motion to Compel Production of Tax Records and Information Relating to Medical Treatments and Diagnoses (Docket No. 80), and the response and reply thereto, the motion is GRANTED in part. The plaintiff shall conduct a reasonable search and produce any documents verifying the source and amount of compensation she reported on her 2006 to 2010 tax returns. These documents shall be produced to the defendant within three weeks after the plaintiff's next arrival in Italy. Because the parties have reported during oral argument that they have resolved the additional documents at issue in the motion to compel, the remainder of the defendant's motion is DENIED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

Mary A. McLaughlin

20120718

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.