# MADER v. UNION TOWNSHIP

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · December 30, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416149

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 30, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416149

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARLA MADER, MARTIN E. MADER, )
MIECZYSLAW GNIADEK, SABINE )
GNIADEK, ) 2:20-CV-01138-CCW
)
)
Plaintiffs, )

)
vs. )
)
)
UNION TOWNSHIP, HEATHER DAERR, )
CHARLES TRAX, JR., RICHARD )
LAWSON, FRANK L. MASSARI, GARY )
SWEAT, KEVIN DAERR, JESSICA )
)
STINER, JARROD D'AMICO, KRIS
)
BOCKSTOCE, DOES 1-50, LINDA )
ROACH, MICHAEL E. CRUNY, )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration on Order to Maders’ Motion
for Discovery (ECF No. 71) and Alternative Request for Deposition of Mader Plaintiffs (ECF No.
72). For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
Pro se plaintiffs Carla Mader, Martin Mader (together, “the Maders”), Mieczyslaw
Gniadek, and Sabine Gniadek (together, “the Gniadeks”) are residents of Union Township. Am.
Compl. ECF No. 19, at ¶¶ 10–14. Through their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Union
Township and the individual defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights in a variety of ways in
connection with the Township’s actions to obtain easements on Plaintiffs’ properties using eminent
domain. See generally, Am. Compl., ECF No. 19. The Maders filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to prohibit Defendants from taking action to perfect or enforce a claim to their
property until their consultants could investigate Defendants’ conduct and report those findings to
certain Pennsylvania State authorities. See Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 39. The Gniadeks are
not party to the Preliminary Injunction. See November 17, 2020 Order, ECF No. 49.
The Court scheduled a hearing on the Maders’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction for
January 21, 2021. Id. The Court also gave the parties an opportunity to seek expedited discovery

as to issues relating to the preliminary injunction. Id. The Maders sought to conduct written
discovery and take the depositions of Kris Bockstoce, Richard Lawson, Jessica Stiner, and Ken
Puglisi, See Mot. for Disc., ECF No. 51-1. The Court granted the Maders’ motion for discovery
in part, including permitting the Maders to take the depositions they sought on or before January
11, 2021, subject to a twelve (12)-hour collective time limit. November 30, 2020 Mem. Order,
ECF No. 59.
On December 23, 2020, the Maders filed a motion for leave to take Defendant Heather
Daerr’s deposition. Pls.’ Mot. to Modify and Reconsider the Extent of Disc. For Prelim. Inj. Relief,
ECF No. 70. Defendant Heather Daerr is the chairperson of the board of Defendant Union

Township. Am. Compl., ECF No. 19, at ¶ 17. Plaintiff’s December 23, 2020 Motion explained
that Defendant Heather Daerr verified a complaint that Defendant Union Township filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania on December 16, 2020 that seeks a
declaratory judgment as to Township’s alleged statutory right-of-way on the Maders’ property.
See ECF No. 70-2.
The Court granted the Maders’ request to depose Defendant Heather Daerr but limited that
deposition to two (2) hours. See December 28, 2020 Order, ECF No. 71, at ¶ 3. On December 29,
2020, Defendants filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider permitting the Maders to depose
Defendant Heather Daerr and, in the alternative, allow Defendants to take the Maders’ depositions
despite that Defendants did not previously request any discovery in advance of the preliminary
injunction hearing. ECF No. 72.
A motion to reconsider is intended “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Bootay v. KBR, Inc., 437 Fed. Appx. 140, 146–47 (3d Cir. 2011).
To succeed in obtaining reconsideration, “the movant must demonstrate a ‘definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed’ or that the court overlooked arguments that were
previously made.” Veolia Water Sols. & Techs. N. Am., Inc. v. Aquatech Int’l Corp., Civil Action
No. 10-484, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152241, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2015) (Conti, C.J.) (quoting
United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D. Pa. 2003)).
District courts have broad discretion over discovery disputes. Sempier v. Johnson &
Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 734 (3d Cir. 1995); see also, Greene v. Horry Cnty., 650 Fed. Appx. 98,
100 (3d Cir. 2016); Hetzel v. Health, Civil Action No. 19-336, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230748, at
*2 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020) (Nora Barry Fischer, J.).

II. Discussion
In light of the broad discretion district courts have over discovery disputes, Defendants
have not demonstrated that the Court’s December 28, 2020 Order (ECF No. 71) constitutes a
manifest error of law. See Bootay, 437 Fed. Appx. at146–47; Sempier, 45 F.3d at 734.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to the extent it seeks to prevent Defendant

Heather Daerr’s deposition. However, such deposition, as with all the discovery permitted by the
Court’s December 28, 2020 Order (ECF No. 71) and its Memorandum Order dated November 30,
2020 (ECF No. 59) must be limited to the issues raised in the Maders’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 39) only. The parties will be given an opportunity to conduct discovery as to
the merits of the underlying case in due course.
Furthermore, in the interest of fairness, the Court will exercise its discretion over discovery
matters to permit Defendants to take the deposition of Plaintiff Carla Mader and Plaintiff Martin
Mader. Together, the depositions shall not exceed six hours and must be completed on or before
January 11, 2021.
III. Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration on Order to Maders’ Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 71) and Alternative Request
for Deposition of Mader Plaintiffs (ECF No. 72) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants’
Motion is denied to the extent it seeks reconsideration of the Court’s December 28, 2020 Order
(ECF No. 71) permitting the Maders to take the deposition of Defendant Heather Daerr.
Defendants’ Motion is granted to the extent it seeks to take the depositions of Plaintiffs Carla and

Martin Mader. Together the Maders’ depositions shall not exceed six (6) hours in length.
The parties are further reminded that all of the discovery at this stage of the litigation is
limited to the issues raised in the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39).

DATED this 30th day of December, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Christy Criswell Wiegand
CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND
United States District Judge
cc (via ECF email notification): All Counsel of Record and Plaintiffs Carla and Martin Mader
cc (via email notification): Plaintiffs Mieczyslaw and Sabine Gniadek

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416149. Public record. Not legal advice.