Case Activity (19400)

1. Order | Filed: September 21, 2026 | Entered: September 21, 2026 Rodriguez et al v. Sawicki et al

   Motor Vehicle | New York Western

   Text Order ~Util - Terminate Motions

   TEXT ORDER. Consistent with the Court's scheduling order at ECF No. 153, Defendant 7-Eleven's six motions in limine (ECF Nos. 145-50) are dismissed without prejudice to refiling, if applicable, following the Court's decision on the pending motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 151, 152). So Ordered. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 09/21/2026. (JCL)

2. Order | Filed: September 17, 2026 | Entered: September 17, 2026 N.G. et al v. INSTANT BRANDS, INC. et al

   Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | Pennsylvania Western

   Order

   ORDER re discovery dispute conference. On 9/17/2026, the Court held a discovery dispute conference regarding recent discovery requests, including multiple interrogatories and requests for production of documents, which Plaintiffs served on Defendant on or about 8/28/2026 ("the August 2026 discovery requests"). Fact discovery in this case closed over three years ago, on 4/21/2023, see ECF No. 82. After fact discovery closed and expert discovery had begun, the case was stayed for three years, until July 2026, due to Defendant's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiffs' August 2026 discovery requests seek information regarding Defendant's indemnity agreements with its manufacturer and whether the manufacturer's indemnification obligation survived Defendant's bankruptcy reorganization. The requests also seek various information that is not related to Defendant's bankruptcy. During the conference, counsel for Defendant advised that Defendant understands its obligation to supplement all discovery requests that Defendant previously responded to during fact discovery. But Defendant objects to reopening fact discovery at this late stage in the case. Defendant also contends that much of the discovery Plaintiffs seek in the August 2026 requests is information held by entities other than Defendant. In response, Plaintiffs contend that much of the information they are seeking concerns Defendant's bankruptcy reorganization, which commenced in June 2023, and thus could not have been requested by Plaintiffs before the close of fact discovery in April 2023. Plaintiffs' counsel also advised that, in lieu of responses to August 2026 requests that do not relate is to Defendant's bankruptcy reorganization, Plaintiffs are willing to accept supplemental responses to discovery requests that were propounded during the original fact discovery period. In its discretion, the Court declines to reopen fact discovery or order Defendant to respond to the August 2026 discovery requests. First, the parties engaged in two years of fact discovery between 2021 and 2023. Second, the Court afforded the parties a great amount of leeway in charting the next steps in the case following the termination of the automatic stay entered by the bankruptcy court. See ECF No. 141. Specifically, after multiple months of meeting and conferring, the court invited the parties to submit a proposed case management order as to next steps in the case. The parties' proposed case management order requested 90 days for the parties to engage in settlement discussions, followed by a period of expert discovery, for which the parties proposed specific dates. The parties' proposed submission was completely silent as to the need for any additional fact discovery. It is now time for this case to proceed to expert discovery. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes, in its discretion, that further fact discovery is not appropriate in this case. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/17/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc)

3. 19398 additional result(s)