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.

WAINWRIGHT v. WASHINGTON METRO. AREA TRANSIT AUTH.

October 17, 1995

PETER J. WAINWRIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, SCHINDLER ELEVATOR COMPANY, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, and WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LAMBERTH

 This case comes before the court on several discovery-related motions by plaintiff and defendants. Based upon the various motions, oppositions and replies, and as further discussed herein, it is hereby ORDERED that:

 1. Plaintiff Wainwright's motion of May 7, 1993 to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents from defendants Schindler Elevator Company, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Elevator Company (collectively "Schindler") is GRANTED with the exceptions noted below.

 2. Wainwright's motion of June 3, 1993 to compel discovery from defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA") is GRANTED with the exceptions noted below.

 3. Schindler's motion of June 1, 1993 to compel physical examination of Wainwright is DENIED. WMATA has made a similar request to which Wainwright has agreed. Schindler is instructed to avail itself of the WMATA examination unless Schindler can show cause why a second examination is necessary.

 4. Schindler's motion of June 1, 1993 to compel deposition of Wainwright's experts is GRANTED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), subject to the schedule established pursuant to this opinion and order, as more fully set forth below.

 5. Wainwright's motion of July 16, 1993 to compel WMATA to produce a qualified and informed Rule 30(b)(6) designee is GRANTED. The transcript of the deposition of WMATA's existing designee suggests that he is either unwilling to testify or uninformed about relevant matters.

 6. WMATA's motion of July 20, 1993 for a protective order pertaining to requests made of Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

 7. Wainwright's motion of July 26, 1993 to compel discovery from Schindler is GRANTED, subject to an appropriate protective order as more fully set forth below.

 8. Schindler's motion of August 16, 1993 for a protective order is conditionally GRANTED. Disclosure or use of proprietary information related to Schindler's shut-down device is prohibited, as more fully set forth below.

 9. Wainwright's motion of July 30, 1993 to extend discovery, and for costs and attorneys' fees is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc with respect to the extension of discovery beyond August 1, 1993. The motion is DENIED with respect to costs and fees. Both segments of the motion are discussed further below.

 10. Wainwright's unopposed motion of June 29, 1994 for a status conference is GRANTED.

 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION OF MAY 7, 1993 TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM SCHINDLER

 Wainwright alleges that Schindler has suppressed information regarding other escalator entrapments, notice of defects as to this and similar escalators, information on post-injury remedial acts, basic mechanical drawings, internal memoranda and correspondence. Wainwright further contends that Schindler has been unwilling to disclose its understanding of the facts surrounding Wainwright's injury, notwithstanding Schindler's assertion of a contributory negligence defense. ...


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.