LANGELLA v. THE COUNTY OF MCKEAN et al, No. 1:2009cv00311 - Document 50 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 43 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Direct Communications with Defendants filed by MCKEAN COUNTY PRISON BOARD, TIMOTHY WOODRUFF, and THE COUNTY OF MCKEAN is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 4/8/2011. (sjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CATHERINE LANGELLA, Plaintiff vs. THE COUNTY OF MCKEAN et aI., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 09-311E MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before this Court is Defendants' "Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Direct Communications with Defendants" [ECF #43]. In their Motion, Defendants explain that "[0 ]ver the last six months, the Plaintiff has served dozens of letters on undersigned counsel in which she copie[d] the McKean County Commissioners; Timothy Woodruff; McKean County's Solicitor; Daniel J. Hartle, Esquire; McKean County's Prison Warden; Bradley Mason; McKean County's Chief Clerk, Audrey Irons; and/or the claims representative at the County's insurance carrier." Motion, ~ 2. Further, "over the last six months, the Plaintiff has on numerous occasions directly corresponded with the McKean County Commissioners and/or the representative of the County's insurance carrier." Id. at ~ 3. Based upon this conduct, Defendants ask that we issue a Protective Order that directs Plaintiff to discontinue any direct or indirect contact with these above-named individuals in matters regarding this lawsuit or be subject to sanctions. To date, all of the contact with which the Defendants take issue in this Motion has been by mail. Therefore, we find that the "blanket" Protective Order sought by Defendants is not warranted at this time. Instead we will issue a Protective Order that states that Plaintiff may continue to communicate with the Defendants via the mail, but she is not to directly contact these individuals in person or by telephone concerning matters related to this lawsuit. Violation of this Protective Order will result in sanctions. Moreover, we remind all parties that they must be courteous, respectful and not engage in harassment when dealing with each other. AND NOW, this ¥O:;;ay of April, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' "Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Direct Communications with Defendants" [ECF #43] is granted in part and denied in part. It is further hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff may continue to communicate with the Defendants via the mail, but she is not to directly contact the above-listed individuals in person or by telephone concerning matters related to this lawsuit. Violation of this Protective Order will result in sanctions. f4(~ p. ~~\h· Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. Senior District Court Judge 2
]]>
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.
