Mooradian et al v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:2017cv01132 - Document 62 (N.D. Ohio 2017)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/30/17. The Court directs plaintiff Frey not to include confidential discovery documents received in the Mooradian litigation in his complaint without defendant's approval. This order is not intended to prevent plaintiffs from citing to any documents in their dispositive motions or any other relevant filing. (Related Doc. 58 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mooradian et al v. FCA US LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: DONNA MOORADIAN, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : : FCA US, LLC, : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- Doc. 62 CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1132 consolidated with CASE NO. 5:17-cv-2154 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 58] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: This Court recently consolidated this case with a similar case brought by Plaintiff Brian Frey.1 Counsel for all Plaintiffs seeks a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss attaching confidential discovery documents received in the Mooradian litigation to Plaintiff Frey’s amended complaint.2 The Court sees no reason for Plaintiff Frey to attach these documents to his complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 only requires “a short and plain statement of the claim” that is “simple, concise, and direct.”3 The Court therefore DIRECTS Plaintiff Frey not to include these documents in his complaint without Defendant’s approval. This order is not intended to prevent Plaintiffs from citing to any documents in their dispositive motions or any other relevant filing. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2017 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 See Case No. 17-cv-2154, Doc. 14. Doc. 58. Defendant opposes. Doc. 59. Plaintiffs reply. Doc. 60. The Mooradian Plaintiffs and Defendant FCA entered into a private contract governing the filing of confidential documents in this case. See Doc. 34-2. Defendant FCA argues that filing these documents in Frey’s complaint constitutes breach of contract. See generally Doc. 60-1. The Court does not consider this hypothetical contractual dispute. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). 2 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
