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.

Osheskie v. Allegheny Ludlum, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 20, 2015

DANIEL OSHESKIE, Plaintiff,
v.
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM, LLC, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MAURICE B. COHILL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Allegheny Ludlum, LLC's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [ECF #12].

I. Procedural History.

Defendant served Requests for Interrogatories and Production of Documents on Plaintiff on October 3, 2014. Plaintiff served responses on October 30, 2014. Defense counsel was dissatisfied with a number of Plaintiffs responses and on November 5, 2014 wrote Plaintiffs counsel a letter explaining what were the perceived inadequacies and explaining that if they were not remedied, Defendant would be filing a motion to compel. Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to Defendant on November 19, 2014. Still dissatisfied as to Plaintiffs responses to Interrogatories numbers 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15 and Request for Production of Documents numbers 14 and 19, on November 25, 2014, Defendant filed the pending Motion to Compel. On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff again supplemented his responses and filed a Response to Defendant's motion to compel, contending that on that date, he had served "full and complete responses to Defendant's interrogatories and physical copies of all documents in response to Defendant's request for document production." Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel, p. 1. Defendant disagreed; on December 15, 2014, it filed a Reply Brief where it explained that Plaintiff had cured some of the inadequacies in his responses, but not as to Interrogatories 7, 8 and 15 and Document Request 19. On December 19, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Surreply Brief in opposition to Defendant's Reply Brief in which he contended that he had answered all of Defendant's requests and specifically addressed his responses to Interrogatories 7, 8 and 15 and Document Request 19. Defendant quickly filed a Response to Plaintiff's Surreply Brief to address Plaintiff's arguments about Interrogatory 15.

II. Legal Analysis.

At this juncture, it appears that we need only substantively address Defendant's Motion to Compel as to Interrogatories 7, 8 and 15 and Document Request 19.

A. Interrogatories 7 and 8.

Interrogatories 7 and 8 are related. Interrogatory 7 asks:
With respect to your claim that Allegheny Ludlum unlawfully retaliated against you, identify and describe in detail the following:
a. the alleged protected activity in which you engaged, on the basis of which protected activity you claim that Allegheny Ludlum allegedly retaliated against you, including a detailed description of any statement made by you comprising the alleged protected activity;
b. the date on which you engaged in the alleged protected activity;
c. the location at which you engaged in the alleged protected activity;
d. whether the alleged protected activity was oral or in writing and, if in writing, a detailed ...

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.