ELGERT v. SIEMENS APPLIED AUTOMATION, INC. et al, No. 2:2017cv01985 - Document 62 (E.D. Pa. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION ISSUED BY THE COURT ON THIS DAY THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 51) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 8/21/19. 8/22/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SEAN ELGERT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1985 Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of August 2019, upon consideration of Defendants Siemens Industry, Inc.’s, Siemens Postal, Parcel, and Airport Logistics, LLC’s, and Dematic Corp.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying Their Daubert Motion To Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Thomas Cocchiola From Offering Any warning, Safety Communication and Alternative Design Opinions At Trial (Doc. No. 51), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 58), and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. No. 60), it is ORDERED in accordance with the Opinion issued by the Court on this day that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED. BY THE COURT: / s/ J oel H. S l om sk y JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J. 1
]]>
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.
