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.

Hughes v. Allegheny County Airport Authority

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

February 22, 2017

LONNELL HUGHES, Plaintiff,
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY aka PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Nora Barry Fischer, United States District Judge

         Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Interrogatories, (Docket No. [108]), and Defendant's response in opposition, (Docket No. [110]). After careful consideration of the parties' submissions and the general standard governing motions to compel discovery, i.e., that the moving party bears the initial burden to show the relevance of the requested information and that it is proportional to the needs of the case and once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to demonstrate the lack of relevance of the requested documents or that responding to the discovery would be unduly burdensome, etc., see Samuel, Son & Co. v. Beach, No. 13-CV-128, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143549 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2014), consistent with the current version of Rule 26(b)(1), [1] Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Interrogatories [108] is DENIED.

         In so holding, the Court notes that Plaintiff has asserted a claim against Defendant for its alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Docket No. 18). The factual and procedural background of this matter, which has been pending for over two years, is set forth in detail in this Court's Memorandum Order dated December 12, 2016. (Docket No. 98 at 1-4). In its Memorandum Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and granted Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery. (Id. at 7-8). In granting Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery, the Court stated that “Defendant will not suffer any prejudice because Plaintiff only seeks information regarding African Americans who have reached full retirement and benefits while working for Defendant. Plaintiff's limited request should not constitute an undue burden to Defendant.” (Id. at 6-7). The Court reopened discovery “for the LIMITED purpose of permitting Plaintiff to serve upon Defendant an interrogatory, i.e., a written question as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in original)). The Court further ordered that “no further reopening of or extensions of discovery will be granted in this matter.” (Id. at 8 (emphasis in original)).

         In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant's responses to the following nine interrogatories:

1. The drivers' seniority list showing hiring dates[, ] including Richie Burkhart and all laborers [who] were promoted to drivers.
2. Drivers['] and laborer[s'] drug test[s] for the last 5 years[.]
3. All hiring and promotions prior to January 9, 2014[, ] including airline services, laborers, and drivers.
4. The names and dates of hire of the airline services employees promoted to Field Maintenance.
5. The fire department hires in the past ten years.
6. Provide the number of employees and minorities within the electrical department.
7. Provide the number of employees and minorities within the paint department.
8. Bob Turner's date of hire, date retired[, ] and age at retirement.
9. Human resources provide hiring and promotions prior to January 9, 2014[, ] including Cheryl Shaw's title and ...

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.