Opinion
Case No. 09-cv-74-PB.
December 10, 2009
ORDER
Plaintiff has failed to establish that state law, the federal rules of civil procedure, or the due process clause entitle her to have a DeBenedetto notice stricken if it is not pleaded with the specificity required of a third party complaint. Nevertheless, using my inherent power to supervise this litigation, I require the defendant to provide a revised notice within 14 days:
(1) identifying the entity that is the subject of the notice (including any information in the defendant's possession that would allow the plaintiff to make service on the entity);
(2) identifying the legal theories under which the defendant contends the entity may be liable; and
(3) identifying the material facts of which the defendant is aware that support a potential claim against the entity.
Plaintiff shall be allowed to conduct discovery concerning the DeBenedetto issue (and shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of discovery deadlines if needed to conduct discovery). If plaintiff contends that the defendant cannot satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the DeBenedetto issue, she may move for partial summary judgement on the issue.
The Motion to Strike Late DeBenedetto Disclosure (Doc. No. 9) is denied.
SO ORDERED.