Chester et al v. Beard et al, No. 1:2008cv01261 - Document 274 (M.D. Pa. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants motion to strike (Doc. No. 240 -1) is DENIED as to the expert report of Dr. Andy Papas and the Declaration of Dr. David Waisel; 2. Defendants moti on to strike (Doc. No. 240 -1) is GRANTED as to the Washington Post article, dated October 6, 2013, and that article is stricken from the record; and, 3. Defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 205 ) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiff class. The case is to remain open for the sole purpose of adjudication of the merits of the Intervenors pending motion to unseal. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 2/13/15. (pw)

Download PDF
Chester et al v. Beard et al Doc. 274 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANK ROBERT CHESTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : No. 1:08-cv-01261 (Judge Kane) ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of February 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 240-1) is DENIED as to the expert report of Dr. Andy Papas and the Declaration of Dr. David Waisel; 2. Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 240-1) is GRANTED as to the Washington Post article, dated October 6, 2013, and that article is stricken from the record; and, 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 205) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiff class. The case is to remain open for the sole purpose of adjudication of the merits of the Intervenors’ pending motion to unseal. S/ Yvette Kane Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania 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.