Court Refuses Plaintiff’s Attempt to “Smuggle” New Discovery Requests through Motion Practice United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, November 19, 2019

PENNSYLVANIA – The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against several defendants alleging damages suffered from exposure to asbestos. The opinion did not provide any background into exposure, disease or procedural history, other than ongoing motion practice between the plaintiff and the defendant, Space Systems/Loral, LLC (SSL) regarding responses to discovery.The plaintiff filed a motion to compel SSL to provide more adequate responses to interrogatories, specifically Interrogatory No. 3, regarding company background information. On July 22, 2019, the court issued an order compelling the requested discovery from SSL. SSL thereafter provided the requested response stating that, “Supplemental Response to subsection (i): SSL does not and has not had a subsidiary or predecessor corporation, and/or corporations, whose liabilities for asbestos SSL has assumed.” The plaintiff was not satisfied with SSL’s answer.

The plaintiff filed the current motion to compel SSL to supplement this answer by “setting forth its position on its liability, if any, for products of Philco or Philco-Ford.” The court found that SSL provided a satisfactory response to Interrogatory No. 3 as originally worded and the plaintiff’s renewed request sought entirely new information from SSL. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Read the case decision here.

Leave a Reply

Next ArticleEvidence of Prior Asbestos Lawsuits Against Defendant Discoverable