Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Felkner v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

United States District Court, Third Circuit

December 18, 2013

JANET FELKNER, Individually and as Administratix of the ESTATE OF DANIELLE FELKNER, DECEASED, Plaintiff,
v.
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. and ANDREW ZIEMBA AND JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

LYNNE A. SITARSKI, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on five discovery motions filed by Plaintiff Janet Felkner ("Plaintiff"), individually, and as administratix of the estate of Danielle Felkner. Those motions are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Andrew Ziemba ("Ziemba") and for Sanctions for the Untimely Cancellation of His Duly Noticed Deposition (ECF No. 29); (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc. ("Werner") to Provide Further Responses to Interrogatories (ECF No. 27); (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Disclosure of Complete Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Werner Enterprises, Inc. (ECF No. 28); (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant Andrew Ziemba (ECF No. 41); and (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Deeming Late Response to Request for Admissions Insufficient, Overruling Defendants' Objections and Determining that Every Request for Admissions Shall be "Admitted" for All Purposes (ECF No. 42).

For the reasons discussed herein, the motion to compel the deposition and for sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT (ECF No. 29); the motion to compel Werner's interrogatory responses (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART; the motion to compel Werner's production of documents (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART; Plaintiff's motion to compel Ziemba's responses to interrogatories and production of documents (ECF No. 41) is DENIED; and (5) Plaintiff's motion to deem late responses to Plaintiff's requests for admissions as admitted (ECF 42) is HELD IN ABEYANCE as not ripe for disposition.

II. DISCUSSION

On December 13, 2013, the Court conducted an extensive hearing on all outstanding discovery matters. The Court issues this memorandum to memorialize the rulings made during that hearing.

A. Motion to Compel Deposition and for Sanctions

During the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that Ziemba's deposition has been taken, thus making this motion moot. Thus, I shall deny as moot the motion to compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 29).

B. Motions to Compel Werner to Respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel Werner to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories (ECF No. 27 at 10), and produce all non-privileged documents (ECF No. 28 at 9). Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Werner to provide more complete answers to thirteen interrogatories (Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, & 19). (ECF No. 27 at 2-10.) Additionally, Plaintiff moves to compel Werner to produce documents related to eleven requests (Requests Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22, 30, & 31) for production. (ECF No. 28 at 1-9.) I shall discuss the issues that were raised in these motions in the same order in which I discussed those issues with the parties during the December 13, 2013 hearing. I shall simultaneously provide rulings on certain interrogatories and requests for production where those discovery requests seek substantially similar information.

1. Person Answering Interrogatories (Interrogatory No. 1)

Defendants' counsel stated that she consulted with Werner employee Emily Rosenvold in responding to the interrogatories. The Court ordered Defendants' counsel to identify the individuals (if any) that Ms. Rosenvold consulted while gathering information for Werner's counsel to use in responding to the interrogatories.

2. Insurance Information (Interrogatory No. 1 and Request No. 1)

This issue is moot, as Plaintiff's counsel acknowledges that the relevant material has been provided.

3. Interviews (Interrogatory No. 4)

Defendants' counsel stated that it is withholding as privileged certain information related to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4. Defendants shall identify the withheld information on a privilege log. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is granted with respect to this issue, and Defendants shall provide an appropriate privilege log.

4. Photographs, Videos Diagrams (Interrogatory No. 6 and Request No. 15)

During the hearing, Defendants' counsel stated that all non-privileged materials responsive to this request have been provided to Plaintiff. To the extent that Defendants are withholding any responsive information on the basis of privilege, the motion with respect to this issue is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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