Bayges v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HUTTON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s (“SEPTA”) Motion to Compel Deposition Answers pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2). Plaintiffs have not answered defendant’s questions claiming that the information is privileged. For the following reasons, defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This issue arises out of the novel questions raised by the inadvertent radio transmission of plaintiffs’ private conversation. SEPTA demoted the plaintiffs from supervisory positions to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc. General Nutrition Corporation and General Nutrition Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Millie B. Heathman v. United States District Court for the Central District of California,respondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Robinson v. MagovernDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Doe v. Special Investigations Agency, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. McCullochDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Great West Life Assurance Co. v. LevithanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Hicks v. Big Bros./Big Sisters of AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- ANDREWS v. D2 LOGISTICS, INC.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.