welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2018
  5. MDAdvantage Insurance Company of New Jersey v. Hasiuk, 16-cv-969. (2018)

MDAdvantage Insurance Company of New Jersey v. Hasiuk, 16-cv-969. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20180709c74 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER LYNNE A. SITARSKI , Magistrate Judge . AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of Defendant Chee Chee Sisco's ("Sisco") Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses from Plaintiff MDAdvantage Insurance Company of New Jersey ("MDA"), (ECF No. 64), and Defendant Sisco's Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses from Co-Defendants Aaron S. Hasiuk, M.D., and Bucks County Women's Healthcare, (collectively "Medical Defendants"), (ECF No. 62), it is hereby ORDERED tha
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of Defendant Chee Chee Sisco's ("Sisco") Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses from Plaintiff MDAdvantage Insurance Company of New Jersey ("MDA"), (ECF No. 64), and Defendant Sisco's Motion to Compel Full and Complete Responses from Co-Defendants Aaron S. Hasiuk, M.D., and Bucks County Women's Healthcare, (collectively "Medical Defendants"), (ECF No. 62), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Sisco's Motion to Compel discovery from Plaintiff MDA (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.1 2. Defendant Sisco's Motion to Compel discovery from Medical Defendants (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.2 Defendant Sisco's Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent it seeks production of documents identified as Hasiuk 00111-12, 00114-0160. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, the Medical Defendants are directed to provide to all parties the documents identified as Hasiuk 00111-12, 00114-0160. Defendant Sisco's Motion to Compel discovery from the Medical Defendants is DENIED in all other respects.

FootNotes


1. In addition to Sisco's first Motion to Compel (ECF No. 64), the Court has considered the following: MDA's Opposition to Sisco's Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 65); Sisco's Reply to Opposition of MDA, (ECF No. 66); Brief in Support of Sisco's Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 72); Brief in Opposition filed by MDA (ECF No. 73); Sisco's Reply to MDA's Brief in Opposition, (ECF No. 74); and Sisco's Modified Reply, (ECF No. 75).
2. In addition to Sisco's second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 62), the Court has considered the following: Brief in Support of Sisco's Motion to Compel Responses from Medical Defendants, (ECF No. 78); Medical Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Sisco's Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 79); and Medical Defendants' Response to Sisco's Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 80).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
16-cv-969.
Counsels
  • MARC E. WOLIN
  • DAVID J. D'ALOIA
  • KRYSTAL D. RIEBESELL
  • ROBERT A. BURKE
  • BARRY G. MAGEN
  • JAMES E. BEASLEY, Jr.
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer