Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COIIRT IN TIIE IJ}TITED STAiES DISTIICT ogro oF DrslRlcr FoR THE sourrrinN
WESTER}T DIVISION ) i ) ) ) ) ) ), Case No. C-1-00-651
Mt8.----F-
,)
fig!-,H5'ijt?
Lambda Regearch,
o R D E.B.
ThismatterisbeforetheCourtonDefendantl,ambda Regearch,Inc''eMotl.onforSummary.rudgmenE(Doc.No..21)and ResponBe to Motion for supplemental Plalntlftra Motion to strike Also before the Court is a (Do:' No' 31)' Summary Judgment aft'er report hts experttB to ftle Plaintiff u h e b y f i l e d motion For the reasons set date (Doc' No ' zil ' cutoff Lhe discovery wellmotrl.on for eummary Judgment ie fortrh below, DefendantlE ie MOoE' 'nption to strike Defend'ant's raken and i8 GRAIffED' Plal.ntlff'smotiontofi}ehieexpert'ereportafuerthe discoverY cucoff date is MOOT' r. Baqkqround
TheplatnuiffinthiscaseleMarki''Kelly,PlainElff isacitizenofthescateoflndianaandho}dsaPhDdegreein Amended Complaint of Cincinnat,i ' from the Univerel.cy cheml.stry fnc' case iE La&da Research' The Defendant in t'his 2.
place of with its pr incipal ( , , L a mb d a n ), a n Oh i o cor :por aEion L'arnbdais in lhe ohio' IL business located in Cinclnnatl' hr:gj.neseofperformingx.raydiffractlonmaterialgtegtinqfor g o ve rn me nt' and academic cliente' l n d u sE ri a l ,
32
00123
began working for Lambda in .ruly 1998 as a technician in Ehe x-ray diffraction laboracory, aleo known ae Lab rr. r n D e ce mb e r 1 9 9 8 , p lainciff was pr om oted to supenr isor of Lab ff. According to plaintiff, he agreed to go to work for r-rambda because iEs prestdenc and director of researeh, paur Prevey, assured him Ehat Lambda was in compliance wlth all indusE'ry sE,andards such as A2rAr and rso goo2.2 upon aecepting the Job at Lambda, plar.ntiff signed a non-competi'ion agreement precluding him from worklng in a compe.r.ng business for one full year following the termination of his employment. Se, Doe. No. 2 4 , E x . C. P l a i n ctff E a y' , howevetr , chaE pr eveyr s aE,sur ance s that Lambda adhered Eo ind.ustry etandard,g ti.rrned out eo be untruer . praintlff
I
plaintiff
etates
that
I I I I
I
rr'
of r.ab
wrirten
geqgdlg
"i3pJoi;";L::,"ll*^:3r^!I"_11:Ilrp
A raboratorw AFarad{ra,r=i]
recosnl'Llon of a1 grgi"ii.rlJ;;;-;;;t'ii'-"ortaEion
eeJcJ.
fiffi
n^^_-:. -+ ;ri: l:;T"+:ff:l.ie:.;lo, i:iJTlll3;..ffi"" FAe,hE f; il"y ;*;: *31' , *IE:' rp ' rzurn 'laz i a.i:: . ;;i ii . ""q
g:ypetency
ff:1l;isuuuenn
I?= senrrclnsges rnEernationil ricernationli see orsanizaEion orsaniz"cion-e;;-;i;;eJ;i re-r eFr-rr-rl_:sTi._ltg. Holnepdg, htte i / cfr f;;i;;i;ai,I mrra,'al-.,'t31!io! "+nw,_iEo.
a
orsanr,zaE,ron Hii:.i:":" . i;:"lga f3f^.*-l:I"f"lionar i 3: : i3.:ilHl"35Tllf; L iE"*H:: fi IIF :*:*;1 _" $ ;-i :, :.i:i,i i::r_ :li" L gxi H'iiliff":"o" I. Titi';I"*l u::3. :. ifi : i*:' r: i_ iii i --'iso ni i and all i aoplicable ; regulaEory :;,1 i 5 i: i :i"1" requireinenr;. i :$ "d, i" ffi :I13 . u' * i;'":;i: iil": in#; ;;;;^i:'rte&Es qualiu! qualiLy .r ";l sysEem syicem roi ploduccion, pioduccion, asrsurance as insrar .rFi ^-*-T991 . inetalfitio",-"i.-"-ott
November
v
procedures procedures,
aceurace gave rise General zirconium perforined t'hat' the test to
00124\
eiEher eould not be followed as writ,ten or tbtat the and
month,
x-ray
cesting, GEN,
tests for
resulcs
Ehe samples
appeared
and requeeted Lambda recheck the Eest, Plalntlff fatled eurface' s k e w e d. discovered t,o ensure that, the technician
After
performing
procedure, was
dlscovered
verbatlm,
se g i 5 [* E x. s.
on zirconium
21rs nuclear safety report,lng requlrements,3 ag used to make fuel rods for
- e e eD o e . N o , 2 L , E x . E ,
T
?herefore' Plaintiff
00125
recomrnendedto Prevey E.hat Lambd,anogtfy GEN of t'he potentiar problems wlch paBt zirconium arloy tesEs eo that GEN could evaruate the geriousnessr of E,he srcuaE,ion, ses rd. rn co n j u n e cl o n 'with the er r oneaus teet, plaintiff prepared fncident actions dereted and submicted to prevey a draft Qualit,y Assurance and howev.er,
Report which deecribed the problem, E,haE should be taken. See id.- Ex. G.
a solution, prevey,
ttre recommendatlon Ehat GEN be nottfLed GEIrIhad already been notlfled-of eo whlch prevey referred,,
The problem
however, an unrelated
problem wit,h sample mounting, but rather reEarding not.ified. 90 degree rotation See plainEiff,
Aff .. Doc. No, 24, Ex, B. prevey I fS, also dereced a recommendaclon.Ehat t,he procedure for zr.rconium testlng be modlfied to ensure sample flacness. s,ee Ex. G; PLalnriff Aff. t 15. f dLecovered a anaryEis prepared a SubsequenE,ly, also in .TuIy Lggg, plaintif problem wluh the software which also used in zir'conium text,ure plalnt.iff
eecond incident
the soft\rare,
see Doc- No. 24, Ex. T. with the Eecond incident earlier
became angry
and demanded t,o know r+hy hls incorporat'ed into Ehe report -
Err
00126
make the could to the not changbe because t.o Ehe reporE, t,he 90 degree Prevey then but Plalnciff explalned wae not Plalntiff to discuss See that he
rotatlorr
problem
incident. to
took
penalE.y of
terminatlon.
that
followlng testing to
his
attempte
to
zlrconlum
Prevey Eeveral
lrosclle
dated areas
Prevey of the
Plalnt,lff aesurance
nonEhs earlier
Plaintiff
Flaintiff
Nuclear evaLuatlon
ieeue.
wl,t.h NRC
investlgacors documents to
monchs and provld,ed See Plaint. Plalnttff fn Dep. 155-53. and a part,, Ehe
a reportr pertl.nent,
summarizlng
conclusione.
Etates I
'
Based upon our review and the informat,lon obtalned from experEa, rrre belleve t,hat the problerns wlbh Lambda Research texture analysis may be at,tribuced to poor and texture analyels concrol of epecimen preparation procedures. FurE,her, wE believe thac EexEure an-lyses
[gic], ln general, cannot, be used to inadvertently
a0727
co n ce rn . g g g D o c ' N o - 2 4 , E x. v, a t 1, Ehat' " [uJ n].ess Ehe NRC receives suggests our conclusions . act,ion on tshis matter.n convinced, beeause in however, that The eover letter addlulonal fur ther etates that
information
we plan no further plaintlff was not concluslon nWe are unsure use Ehe tex.ure desplte hiE
how GE NucLear or Lambda Research's other clients analyels fesults.rr See ld. at 4, Neverthelese, rnlsgrvlnge about the report, praintiff
did nouhing to cortrec! any misapprehensl'one thaE the NRC might have had abou. GEN,' use of Lambda's zirconium testing se*rr.ces. praint. Dep. at 165-65, The issue of the quallty aEurance rncid,ent report then lay dormanE untll February 16, 2OOOwhen Marle Marawl, Lambda,s quality assurance manager, brought plaintiff another vereion of the report for his signature. praintiff eold Marawl that he w o u r d n o c e l g n th e i e p o rc until he r eviewed it. see pr ainE, A ff. f zr' F o r ro w i n g th i s re fu sar to slgn Ehe r epor t,, Fr aint,iff clalme thae prevey began heaprng abuse on hlm. For instance, plaintiff when aeked permission to implement a new procedure using hot epoxy for mount,ing zirconium sarnples, prevey frew into a rage, demanding to know why Ehe procedure had nots already been
0012F
J.mplementsed-r lab after hours Plaintiff says thac Prevey eonfronted him in Ehe he
and angrlly
and E,he 1ab technicians t,esEing. PlaLnulf f During cJaims with t,hie
about
a half . file
hour,
"goE in in
face. rr
culminaced
Plainciffre plainEplaintiff
two
m e m o s rc r i t i c a l
of
his
performance-
t,hab incidenr,
preveyrs angry
him continued.
promLsed
and, after
froni
Eo two.
rn addrcion, MLchael
prevey in
Glavlcrc,
saysr, preparing
Glavicic
t,o run
nlght
of
February
prepared eit,her
a be
reeignation forced to
uB of prevey
zirconLum to
tesEing.problems. PlainEiff
presenued
which
sEated trhat
no changes mlnutee,
and later,
00129
Plaintiff t'o furcher rather aays that d i scu ss at the end of the hour, th e si tuation, when prevey refueed r esignation { 25. count he submitted his
than sign
a repor!
rd. a five
4 1 1 3 , 2 5 , 'w ro n g fu l lnt,enfional
in violaelon
of Ohto public
intlietion
of emotlonaL d,lstress,
a n d p r o m i e so ry
e sco p p e l '
amended complaLnt L a n h a mA c t ,
Lambda filed r e cr ar .m s.
a motion wlth
for
he wae subjected
because he reslgned and cannot estabrleh that he was constructively diecharged. In any event, Lambda.argues, the evidence doee not establish a causal conneccion due to lapse of tr-me between the whletr.ebl0wing and the arleged. conBtructlve discharge. Furthermore, Lambda argrues, plaintiff dld not saClefy th e n o t i c e re q u i re me n te o f S 4113.82. Finally, Lam bda ar gueE Ehat Plaintiff did not have a reasonabre bellef of lmminent risk the erroneoua of harm because Ehe NRC had already zirconturn testLng
concluded, t,hat
to eafety. Lambda argrueg ' thaE summary JudgmenL on the wrongfur'termination in vioratlon of
00130
i public policy t6 apPropriate cIal.m. to the intent,ional infliction of emollonal for the same reasons as the
whisEleblower
approprlaue
Furthermore, suffered
that, PlainEiff
eevere
e m o E , i o n a l d i stre se ,
Lambda arslues thats sumrnary judgment contract ab-wil1. eetoppel claim is approprLate because PlainEiff
f,ambda conE,ends t.hat summary judgment on the promissory claim is aPProPriate rely because PlainEiff, dld not Finally,
detrimentally j
. Lambda argues thaU summary judgment on the Lanham Act, claim le ls not wlthin the clasg of persone appropriat,e because Platnclff neant to be protect.ed Plaintiff motion for bY the Act. a memorandumin oppositlon whieh relies extensively, to l-rambdaf s tf not
filed
deposition In its
Doc. No. 24. S-eq, .argumenEg. Lambda argrues that Plalnt,if f t e testLmony and that on the of civil
affidavit
deposition of lc
t.he Court
ln ruling rules
the local
uhe filing
memorandurn1n opposltion
00131
Pl.aintiff . judgment contradict deposiulon whlch would filed (Dgc. his a eupplemental No, 30) which reaponse Eo the arguea chat his and that awoided motion for summary
does not
Eeetimony st,udiously
defense have
guestions filed
developed
a motion
supplernental rule
as belng of
in violaEion motlons.
local
eetabliehing
briefing
mptions
brlefed
and are
Summarv Judqment is
Standard ttlf
of the
Review pleadings,
proper
lnterrogatories, if any,
.affidawite,
as to
any materiaL
entlcled fhe
56(c). . is
on a motion
construed glven
Eo the
who le
Lnferences lnc.,
stat,ee v. of
Diebold.
some arl.eged
factuar
defeat
requiremeng n Anderson
be no genuipe
Lobby. Ine-,
47? U,S.
original),
10
\ \ \ \ I ,
l
I
! ^
00133
The CourE will clear t ha t a tri a l noL grant summary judgrmenu unless The thr eshold trial inguir y.to t'there are it is
i s u n necessar y,
determine wlreuher t,here ie a need for any genulne factual a finder of either for trial of
is whether
fact, because uhey rnay reasonably be resolved Andereon, 477 u.s. there ls sufficient at 250,
moving party
favors
aummary
fnc., 3Cg U,S, by Rule required its
Broadcastinq of material
requlred le not
enEitle
a party
to proceed to in favor of
to be resolwed exisE,ence;
rather,
t,hat, is craimed
required factual
dlspute
a Jqdge to
resorve
t.he partiesr
versione
o f th e tru th
a t, Lr ial.' ,
Service Go., 391 IJ.S, 253, 288-99 (f g6e)Moreover, extreme caution court, FmLLhv. although eummary judgment muFE be used wlth hls cerql day in
eince
diemisse4'
444 u.s.
986 (19?9). lhe United States supreme Court trleJurnmary Judgmerrcprocedure is properly procedural shortcut, but rather as
00133
deslgned to 'secure of the jusE, speedy and lnexpeneive Coro, w. Catr-gt-t-, 477 the for if a
every
(f geg) , granting
summary jridgment
standard
verdict,
and thus
approprtate
the
that party
insuffieient to rec,urn
a jury
party.
who fail.s of
to make a ehowlng
sufficlent to
uhe existence
an element eesential
the party's
bear the burden of proof at ,w111 coro. , 477 u.s. at 3zz. stgntflcanery, the inetructs enE,ry of that therrthe plaln language of Rule
thab party
also the
afLer
discovery showlng
probative
evidence. the
Anderson, Parcy to
at, 250.
Rure 56(e)
requires
non-moving facts
"specific L+-
showlng
that
there
no express
in
supportr its
or simllar 55 (a)
materials provide
the opponent's
claim.
and '(b)
EhaE parbles
"wiLh or
without party
non-moving
00134
dlspositsirre
lssue,
baeed
lnterrogatories,
III.
Analvsis
A. The Whistleblower-,C1aim and WroJrqful rermlnation P l a l n t,l ff's Plalntlff for claime that fi rsE cwo clatm s ar e essentlally discharged Ehe am e. by Lambda
he wag constructively
reportlng
inaccuraue
and frar,ldulent
in vLolat,ion policy
st,atuEe.
scat,ute provldes:
, .
. . '
A) (r) (a) lf an employee becomee aware in E,he course of E,he_employeers emproyment of _a viotation of iiitior federal statute oi any ordinance or regrulati"r-"i-o ""y p o l l tl ca l su b divieion that the em plpyee' s- employ."- fr .e authority to correct and if the employee reaeon;,btv b e l l e ve s th a c rhe violation either - r s- a er imini o ffe n se E h a E i s ltkely to cause an im m inent r iEi' of physical harm to persons or a hazard to publlc heaith or safety or is a felony, the emproyee oialry eh"li--noEify the employee's supervisor or other re3ponsible officer of the employeete employer of the vioiaifon=""a subsequenbly shall fl1e wlth Uhit supervisror or offlcer a wrl.tuen reporE thaE providee eufflcienE detall to idenrif,y and describe Lhe vioration. rf ine doeg noc correcu the violatioh "wioi"r or make a reasoiabie-and . good faieh ef,f,orE, to correct the violat,ion wftfrfntwenby-four hours af,ter the orar noE,lficatlon recelpt of Lh9 report, whichever is earlier, "i--trre the employee may flle a wrltEen reports thaE provides sufficienr derair. to ldenEify ind descriLe Ehe vlolaclon wlth the prosecuE.ing aut,hority of E,he countv or munieipar corporatlon ln whieh bhe vioracion occurred, wiE,h a peace g e n e ra l tf th e violatio g e n e ra l t s Ju rl e dlcELon, public offlclal or agen over E,he employer and t in which the ernployer ls engaged.,
13
00135
(b) rf an employee makeE a (A) (1) (a) of this eection, cwenty-four hourE after the or the report, waE receLved was received,
on the next regular businees aay totrowin! i["]a"i""" which Ehe oral-notifi;ation wae made or the
report whichever is later, qhatl
report, under diwigion thl employer, wiuhin oral not,iflcatior-*." made or by Ehe ctose-oi u"ui""".
t.hg -emp_loyerand Lhe industry,-lrade,'o, whlch the employer is eng.g.i. (3) If an employee becomes employee t s empl6yrnent oi a employee of any btate or fe
off tctal
not,lfy the employee., in-wriring, gf ?ny effort,'"i ;[; ' rE o co rre ct th e alr eged violation "ilii"y"" or hazar d, or o f th e a b se n ce of r he ar r eged violar i;; ;; f,izar a, (2) rf an employee becomes a$rare in the couree of the e mp l o ye e 'e e mpr olr m enr of a violar io" a[$r ;r - 3- ?;i, , 3734., 6109., or G111. of Ehe Rewised "i ,C o d e E f i i i = - " crirninal offense, . the employee directry may notlit,' either ora1ly or in wriringl any_ipp."iriate p"[iil
or agency-rhaE,haE-resir;'a;ry' aurrr"rl[v-Ji"=
busineEe in
'vLolation and subsequenE,ly s supervisor or officer a wlitten report that provldes su ffl cl .e n t d e ra il to ldenr ify an- Eesir iue Ehe vi o l a E i o n .
nquiry
00136
actsion by the or reEaliatory disciplinary dl-vislon, not but, is limJ,ted uo, dolng any of Lnc1udea, employer the followingr (1) RemovLng or suepending the employee from employment; ' (Z) Wtchholding from the employee salary Lncreases or to whlch the employee otherwl,se is employee benefite . e n ti t,l e d r' (3) ?raneferring or reassigning che employee,(4) Denying the employee a promotion thaE otberwl-se would have been receivedl (5) Reduclng Ehe employee tn pay or position. ' (C) arr employee shall make a reasonable and good faith to deeerml.ne the aecuracy of, any lnformatlon effort (A) (1) or (2', of this report,ed under division ' section. If the employee who makee a report under eiuher of thoee divisione falle to make an effort oE that nature, Ehe employee may be subject to dlsclpllnary act,ion by the employeere employer, including Eugpension or remgval, for reporting J.nformatl.on wlthout a reagonable basis t,o do 5o under (e ) (r) or ( 21 of thiE eectl- on. d i vi e i o n (D) ff an employer takeE any dlEclpltnary or recallatory actlon against an ernployee as a result, of gtle employee's having f lled a report under divlslon (A) of thl.e section, the employee may brJ.ng a civil action for approprlate lnJunctl.ve rellef or for t,he remedlee (E) of E,hie sectLon t ot both, eet forth in division within one hundred eighty days after the dat,e the dieciplinary or ret,allaeory action was taken, in a court of, common pleas in accordance with the Rules of clvtl Procedure. A civll actLon under this division le not available to an employee ag a remedy for any dlsclplinarlz or retallaEory action taken by an appointlng authority againet the employee as a reEult, of. the employee's having filed a repori under divisLon (A ) o f se cE i o n 724,34I of the Revised Code.
Ohio Rev. Code S 4113.52. fn order to claim protecLion as a
whlstleblower, procedural 9 *,
requirementE
See Cont,rer.as- v.
6 5 2 N . E , z d 9 4 0, a t s y l , ( g h l o 1 9 9 5 ) ,
15
::-
00137
to che terms of the e.atute, ln order to p r e v a i r o n a cl a i m u n d e r the gvhlstleblower Acc, a pr aintiff mus t eecablish that; 1, duri.ng Ehe course of his .emproyment he beeame aware o f a vi o l a u i o n of any feder lr ,' ;;;r ";' - or local sta tu te , o rd i nancef or r egul"li""- ir r it [i""*pr oyer had auEhority to correcii z. he reaeonably berieved, that the vioratlon was a cri mi n a l 'o ffe n se ltkeLy to cause an imm inent r isk physiear harm to-persoie, ' or a hazard Eo pubrtc eafeEy, or ie a fllonyl 1. he rnade a rea'onabre and, good faith effort co det'ermtne rhe accuracy of-any inrormi;r;;-r;;o!ced, 4 ' h e o ra l l y n o tifled the empr oyer of euch vior atlon; 5. he provided E,o Lhe empl0yer a written report with e u ffi ci e n r d er air r o iaeieity a"a- ieecr r ue the violacion; 5 . th e e mp l 0 ye r falled to *k.",a good faith correct such violation wJ.chin [w"ntllFor= a fte r n o ti fi ca tion; effor t t o houre According
of
3: ffgll!"3tEllLfi"*!1on
.9 . a cr a re e u l t." i _ !+ s r epor !, disctplinlry acclon- i6ii"!c re ta l l .a te d a g ainsr hiil. $eq geqerally o h i o R e v. C o de S 4113,s2,
to an approprr.ate asencv
tF" employer t.ook him or olhertrree
The Ohlo Supreme courE has also held for wrongful terminatlon
in violatlon
embodlbd, withln
Fl_berg, fnc.,, 677 N,E.2d 30g, at syl, r n o rd e r E o p re va i r on a claim for wr ongfur o f p u b rl c p o rtc y, Ehe plar ntiff
ln v t o l a u l o n chat, '
16
00138
publie policy a clear and iE manifested exists ln a state or federal, consclLuclon, FUac,ute, or admlnietrative regulation, or in the common law;
2 . diernisEing
the plainEif wae .moEivat,ed by f 's dismissal pollcy; reaeons relat,ed t,o the public 4. the def,endant lacked a legitirnate
for
dismleelng plalnelff
busineas
. In ca6e,
v. Rlzkana, 652 N.E.zd 553, GE?-59 (Ohto t99S). to proving f claims Ehe above elemenEE, wherer as ln thie he wae terminated in vLolat-l.on.o!
the public
embodied tn che Whistleblo.wer Acc, he must also compliance with a nd wr itten the procedural requirements and a of
demonstrate strLct t , h e a cE , i .e ., o ra l
notice
to the.em ployer
to correct t,he vlolation. ggg KBlch, 677 'Thus, N.E.2d at 315, 323in thls partlcular caeer plaintlff,E whietleblower essentially clalm and PlaLnttf f ts wrongful t,erml.naEion claim
reasonable opportunity
AE noted above, Lambda argueE that plaintif,f cannot, . esE.ablish any of che elements of elther hls whistleblower claim or hiE wrongful shows,that Eermination cl.aim, Lambda argareE that the record
Plalntlff
nor coneEructlvely
he was not eubjecEed tro retallaEory platntiff was eoneEruet,lvely ie no cauEar connection whisfleblowl,ng dld actlv l ti ee. notlce
that
b e c w ee n th e d l sch a rg e
noc provlde
00139
FufficienE, S 41L3.52 ' reasonable safety Eo stricrly Finally, belief comply r+ith Ehe procedural r.,arnbda argues Ehat plalnt,iff
requirements
of
b e ca u se th e N R C had noEified
addregsing
Lantbdale arguments,
it
is necessary
clalms.
worked wlth
concernsr, iE appears to be undl_eputed thaE prior to plaintiffrs alleged conetructlve dlecharge, prevey wag unaware L h a r , p l ai n E i ff h a d b e e n in Eouch wit.h the NRC. Ther efor e, , p l a L n t i f f 's ) ca se w o u l d fair because lher e ig no r er ationehlp between his arreged terminaEion and, his report to ttre NRC.. see, E_rg-r.r , go3 F.2d 1064, 1056 ( 6 t h c l r - 1 9 9 0 ) (l n o rd e r to establish cr ar .m for r etaliat,r on rmret,ehow Ehat emproyer waE aware that h e e n g a ge d i n p ro E e cte d activlty) . It Ls not cer taln, however , plalntiff that re clatming E.haEhe wae terminaEed for repo'ttng hts concerns to t,he NRC. Rather, the clarms Beem t,o be rlrnired t,o the assertsion elgn the incident not'ifred zlrconium EhaE plaintlff report was termlnated for refueJ.ng t,o d"* n"a been whlch faleely under TitLe vrr, plalntiff
inveeElgat,e his
sEated that
of poeelble
LambdarE of
t,eeEing and/6r
GEN be notified
18
00140
thac problem unable Ln accordance any other with 10 C.F.R. Pt' 21'3 The Cogrt of these is interpretation
co d,evelop
reasonable
ewo claims
before iE.
ingerpretation Plalntif
the eourt
agrees wlth
zirsonium eafety.
P1 a i n t i f ,f,s approbrtate.
w h i e t.l e b l o w e r
point,
GEN contraited
out
teeting sa fety
purchase orderE wlch and wLchout a 10 advieor y. The pur chase or der for
C , F . R . P t,. 2 L n u cl e a r
t did ftle a complaln; The Courtr notee t.haE Plaintlff against, which he' wlth the NRC Bhat he was being retaliated Doc. No . 24 ' 10 & 10 n. 1 . w i t h d r e w , a n d th e n re tn B tated,. F does however, Ehat in ehie ca$e Platntiff rft" C"uri reigeratea, agal.net for fllLng a appear to allege that he wae retaliated ""r reporE witrh the NRC. 6 The advisory states:
TTREPORTING THE APPIJICABLE PROVISIONS OF 10 CFR PT 21' oF DEFECTS A\ID NON-COMPIJIAIICESn, APPIJY TO TIIIS IF 9ELLER REPORTS ANy DEFECTS TO THE NRC PRoC't REMEMI. UNDER PART 2I, THE SEIJLER SHAIJT CONCURREIflfLY FLTRNISH THE BTIYER TTITH A COPY OF jIHE ST'BI'IITTAIJ AT.ID AI.NT APPITICABLE DETAIL'S. FOR MANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WHICH ARE PI'RCHASED BY GENERAIJ ELECTRIC, FEDERAIJ REGUIATIONS REQUTRE THAT GENERAL ELECTRIC NOTIFY IfS SUPPITIERS OF THE REQUIREME}ITS OF SECTION 206 OF TIIE E}IERGY REORGAMZATIoN AcT oF L974 Al{D TITLE 10 OF TIIE CODE OF FEDERAL REGI'IATIONS.PART 21, BY STATING IN TTIE PURCITASE ORDER THAT IO CFR 21 APPLIES TO THE PROCUREMENT. THE PRODUCTS AllD SERvreEs To WHICH THIS REGUITATION AFPLIES ARE THOSB WHICH COULD, IF DEFECTI\IE OR NONCOMPITIAIiIT, CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICAIIT RADIOITOGICAL HAZARDS, 19
00141
t h e s a mp re w h i ch g a ve ri se c o n Ea i n a n u cl e a r to plaintiffr s concer ne did not
See Doc, No, 2ir , Ex. E. Therefore, Lambda cont,ende, plaLnttff dld not. have a reasonable belief thaE the tesElng errors presented i E,hreat to pubrtc safeEy' other The Court, notes, ordere however, Ehat plaintiff by GEI.Idid cont,iin wae aware thac a nuclear purchaee alert purchase
sa fe C y aler E,
submitted
Therefore,
Ehe particular
does not deE,racE from che reasonableneee of platnulff,s berlef EhaE the probrem courd pose a threaE to publrc safeEy. The Courts does agree. with Lambda, however, thaE, the NRC'!s conclusl.on EhaE nucrear safety was not threaEened by Lambda's arreged frar+ed proeedures dispelled any reasonabre belief Ehat r.arnbdawas vr-orac,ing 10 c,F,R. the defect with to GB[. rn reaching 1n the fierd pt . 2L by not r.te concrusions, of Ehe reporting
one expert
testing
'
MAIIy SUPPLTERS ARE NOT PRODUCTSA}rD SERVICES. NOT NORI,IAIJIJY BE ABIJE T DEFECTS OR NONCOMPLT.E,}I MAy'ISSUE A IJETTER TO DEFECTS, SUCH AS LACK . DESIGN SPECIFICATION W SHIPPED PRODUCT OR SER TO AppIJy, UPON REcEIpi GETNER.AIJ EIJECTRIC WIITIT l EVALUATTON AI{D REPORT 1 coMMISSroN, IF NECESSAI BECOMING A}VARE OF flTE I 10 CFR 21, GBNERAIJELE( uPoN RFQTTEST,
20
00142
f u e l cl a d d l n g 4. d e si g n p er Epective. See Doc. No. 24, Ex. V, at, 3-
chat erroneous EexE,ure analye5,s bad material for good and, based on safecy had not
nuclear
conclusion
by noting
re su l t,g ,o
accor ding
was unrelLable
because lc could
determination
u s e d tH e d a ta p ro vi d e d P l a i n t i ff's clear
a rg u me n t suffer s
impllcatlon
data provided. by l,ambda was irrelevant C1ear1y, had a euch a factor evaluation, informatsion, irrelevant, it
been important
but
wae unnecessary
GEN of
the tesbing
correctly
00143
specifically Lnformed P1ainEiff t,hat lc would take no furtrher information Therefore, if Lnd,icating the NRc had
acEion on the maLt'er untess iE recelved t,hat its conclusion should be altered. atlegaEions,
m i s i n t e r p re t,e d sugget, it
P ra i n ci ff'E
as he now appear s co
m l e a p p re h e n e i o n a E th a E tim e, buE he did noE. fairure to follow-up with the NRC ind.icares that that
noE hold a reaEonable belief did not make a reasonable informat,ion waE accuraEe,
effort, Elther
trowever , - . f atal
t o t h e e e cl a l ms, Whlle Plalntlff rny immedlate fears bad materials analyeie texture admite that the NRc'e reporg "removed of
of, safet|
ln safet,y crttical
due Eo bad Eexture chau hls concerne about ,ruse of bad etudles in design or
development of nuclear a c E , i v i t i eB
eomponents or other Af f . I zo
t,he facE thaE one of the experle by the NRC was. r'a,senior engineer of one of the maJor fabrleatlon companies who has experl.ence design per spectlve.,, in texture
fuel
fro m a fu e l
cl a d ding
by platntitf plalntif>remalned
z F l f r 6 ^ t t 6
00144
jeopardized report that by Lambdars Eesting Procedures despiEe to the the NRC'e exLent in failure in
founded.
Aceordlngly,
and wrongful
termination
violatlon and/or
the
probleme summary
aeeordance judgment is
10 C.F.R.
2I,
tambdars tnotion
well-taken
and ie for in
remaining
ltght
ident.ifying
problem. Ehat
containing
faleehoodE,
proEected policy,
by elther
t,he ohio
llhletleblower
AcE or Acc
AB lndlcated'above, ie a potenElal
appll-es stater of
federal,
Accordlng
publtc
pollcy.
iEieW!he*gua1it,yas9uranceincidentreport,Eare for internal puryoseE the reporbe only and thau Lamb<!g__[qE_n,ot required or governmental At m ost, it agency. to see
discrlbute
to any crient { +.
D o c . N o , 2 !,
E x, A , P revey Aff,
E o ma intain
00145
Dep. f aE 8-10. d e t e r m in e , vl o l a te Thus, L,ambdadid notr a n y feder ai, i n te rnally state, a false dEt far as the Court can
o! Ioca1 Laws by allegedl y gualtty asgur ance Lnci denc District fndiana courE publtc to
of fndiana
poricy falatfy
mainE,enance recorde
wigh ISO
and no fed,eral
see Brlcker
Corp., 29 F, Supp,2d 508, 9LZ (S.D,Ind. 1998). finds Ehat ohlo public pollcy trae not violated false gualtuy
Plaintiff report
zirconium
Therefore, violation
P L a i n u i ff'E
in Lambdate favor
clal.m is approprJ.ate.
the reaEons Just sEated, Lambdare rs craims under the sununary Judgment on platntiff Acc and for policy wrongful t,ermination in violatton of,
is well-taken
are DI9lfitSSteD WfTB PREintDIcE. B, lntentionat P l a l n cl ffts actlone tnell th i r d caune oi action allegee that, Lambdafs lnflictlon of
's constit,uted
incent,ional
Under ohio Iaw, 't loJne who by ext,reme and outrageous conducE intentlonarly or recklessly .cauges severe emotional
24
00146
emotional dJ.ecress co another and if har m.,, is eubject to llablltcy harm to the other for results such from 4Sl emoclonal distrese, i t s , fo r su ch b o d i l y bodtly
N . E .2 d 6 6 6 : 6 7 L (o h i o 1993) ( guoting Restatem enr ( Second) of T o r ts tf S 4 5 (1 ) (1 9 5 5 ) ). Ir iabilityr . howeVr , doeE noc actac h ev en or criminal, or even
t,he defendant'E
mallclous
of puniEive the
emotional
diitress
and utEerly
community.'
rd.
The emoEional dLeBress t,he plalnt,iff b e y on d me re u p se t o r hur t 7 5 9 . 7 6 5 (Oh i o 1 9 8 3 ), severe and debilitat'lng constLtuued, dietress feelinge. euf,fers mugt go pauqh v. qanke, 451 N ,E.z d,
Rather ,
tshe em otional dl- etr ese Fr us t be a reasonable person, normally the ment,al rd. The
euch that
engendered by tshe circumet,ances of the cage. doee not, however, have to be rhe plalntiff
to
summary judgrment in
ite
favor
on
00147
emotional d i sL re se a l l e gedly suffer ed by Plaint,tff ,s posiEion is was nel.Eher that pr ev ey ,s
pr aintiff
violence,
s c i e n Ei st-
w e n t to the cor e of his being as a r eeear c h p l a i n ti ff says thal Pr eveyr s act,l.onE wer e poten ti al l y evenbs whlch caused sreeplessnesg, and an LnsreaEe in blood pressure. weeks of _Seqplalnt.
Arf- f 2?.
The eourtr agreeE with d i e t r e sE cl a l me d b y P l a intiff fo support distrese. r,ambda that, the emotional sever e a nd, of wae no! eufflclenEly
debilitaEing emotionar
infllcuion
As ind,icaced, pratnuiff
contende that and lncreaseci t.he same or . glrerruled on gther so? (1gg3), she wae havtng irnpresslon t,o esEablleh
Preveyre behawLor caused sleeplesenees, blood pressure. simlLar effecte Courts have held, hrere ineuff,icient
faElgue,
eevere and,
d e b i l i r ar,i n g
d l st,re ss.
For instance;
Natrs rng. Co., 081 F.zd 309 (6Uh Clr, qrgundE, st.
Marvf s Honor senter v, Hlcka, 509 u.s. that Ehe plainEiffrg withdrawn, uegutmony that and had a general
night,s,
felt
tshat she was not the same person waE insufflclent e e v e r e e mo tJ.o n a l d L E tre ss. f c e C r e a r nC o f p . , LCr . at 329. In.@
736 N.E.2d 30 (Ohlo Ct'. App. 1999), the CourE herd that che pralncLf f ,e test,imony .that she suf f ered from stress, had nightmares, and, EomeE,imes vomited on the way home
26
00148
vtas from wOrk ae a conBequence of the defendantts behavlor distr eEs ' i n s u ff,l cL e n E to e sta blish eever e and debtlica"ltt aC 34, In l rvn n v, A llled Cor p,, 536 N.E,2d 25 ( Ohio Ct' and hyster ical feel i nge, to Pur th er m or e, help or courEs
Id'
APP.
and elevatred blood pressure were lneufflcient se ve re e m oEional distr esE, EhaE Plaintiff fd. at 34.
c o n e tl tu te it
iE undispuced
counsel.l.ng as a resul-t
of Preveyrs
not establlshed
S-ee pickerson
(collect,ln$ cases); ljhion, 649 N.g.zd 40, 50 (Ohlo et, App. L994) s e e a l sg g 3 g 4 g , 8 9 1 F.2d al 318. Ther efor e, the Cour t fi nds that. , plaintiff emotlonal has falled dieEress to eet,abllsh severe and debillt.ating
bouh becauee t,he acE,ual s)mptoms he complains ln and of themEelvee to be eevere and did not seek rnedical or
ie tteIl-taken c,
and lE OR.ANIBD.
B.Eeach of Cont,rect and 3-romisEolY, Estoppel' four tsh and flf,ch causeE of action contracu and prornissory estoppel' claim alleges that an enf,orceable aes er t
breaclr of contract
ernployment contract,
beEween ptaintiff 27
that
it
operated,
and would
conE.inue
Eo operat,e an honesr organizaEl_on whleh cornpried wit,h arl. indusEry etandards. and all federar and state regulations thac it breached such conEracE by d.emanding that, ptalntiff ln vioration him for of appltcabi.e regulatione and parEicipaEe discharging
and
t,o ensure t,hat, Lambda adhered t,o those standards, The promissory estopper clalm alleges that Plalntif,f det'rimentarly relied, on r,ambda,s asurances EhaE lt ran an honest organization in deciding to accepb empJ.oymentthere. r-rambdaargues that appropriate summary Judgrment on thig because the record, demonsErates that employee at-willrn all honesty, Pl,alntiff rs rebuttal. elalm le plaintlff was an argument.
attempting
is hard co fo110r+, but he appears Eo suggesE t,hat the prevey,s ecatemenus that t',,imuaa complled wlth rso gooz and A2LA sEandard.s creat,ed cercain terms and condlUtons of hie empl_olzmentwhlch Lambda vioraEed when it arreged,ry const,ructively diecharged hlm. PralntifE ar.ao appear' to argue that the non-cornpetitlon agreernenE he eigned created, or at leasc suggesEe, Ehe existence of an empJ.oyrnenE contract. At' the outset, exEenE that, platntiff governed by a contracE, terminatron i n vro l a tro n the court notes in passlng that, .o the
clalms his empropent, at rrambd,a-wae he canno. aeert, a clar.m for of public por iey. see wrongtul
r
claim
D a r r l - sc o m o a n r . e s , 7 5 3 N . E . 2 d g g g , 9 0 6 - 0 ? ( o h t o cu. App. 200r). The wrongful cermination in vioratlon of public poltcy protects at-will employeee on1y, not employeee subject 28
E,o an
00150
emplo)rmentcontract''Id'Thus'alt'houghtsheCourtsrecogn izes ^S Fed' R' Clv' in che alternac'ive' plead Tnay Ehab a plaintiff P.8(e)(2),t}ret'wot)pegofclaimgaremuE,ual}yexc}usiveEothe extentthat,oneorbothiEcapableofsurvlvlngsunmaryJudgrrnent' Agageneralrule,ohiofo}lowstheemploymentat-will at any may termlnate an employee erq>Ioyer an in which 483
doctrlne
t i m e f o r a n y r e a s o n ( o r n o r e a s o n ) n o t , p r o h l b i t , e d b y l a w ' ' sPrintinq uchaS Co" wtere v' Dispatgh gee animus' becauEe'of, racLal employee ie ' conver sely' t' tr e 1985) (Oh i o 1 5 3 N . E. 2 d 1 5 o , g e n e r a l l y a l w a y s f r e e t o 6 e v e r t s h e e r n p l o } m e n t r e l a t l o n s h l p w i t h Ehe where additlon t'o the eituation rn Id' hls employer' employeeIsEerml-nationwouldvj.o]-atepublicpolicy,theohio
SupremeCourEhaerecognizedexcepbionstottleat.vlllemp}o yment 'The firat situatJ'on ie when Uhere is docErlne in trwo siguatlons' the trerms of contract which alters expresB or an J'mplied discharge.B.at154.T}reeecondatcuationiewhenE.}re emp).oyermakespromisegorrepregenlatlongt,oEheemployeewhich fallwit}rinchedoctrl'neofpromissoryeEEoPpeI..E*.ieeea}go 394 (obio ' 553 N'E'2d 381' 199s). In determining wtll have altered the ag-
enployment reLationship'
00151
on the questLon. See Mers, 483 N,E.2d aE 103-04; H5ighl, 653
N.E,2d at, 384. fn conBract Prevey in wit,h that supporE, of hie contention point,e t,hat he had an employment made by
Lrambda, P1aintiff
eo represenEations
r,ambda followed
industry
representaE,iong induscry was a rrgood and researeh. a quallEy facE that that he
a Lambda brochure
standards, fLcn
and Preveyrs
staEement
ouulining
a noncompetition whether
flnds or
none of
evldenee,
colrecbJ.vely, of an
creaEeE a materlal emplol.menc contract. relles reasonably for For relieg, holds Doc'
iseue
t.he exietence
None of creates
an expectation
t,haE plaintiff
terml-nat,ed
eauee only. inetance, the Lambda brochrire in generar eimply upon whiclr st,ates that plalntiff Lambda
No,
24 Ex, A,
a number of
cerEificatlone
and that
iE malnt,ains
a quallty
by ISO.
The brochure,
however, doeg
or outlining. oral
preveyrs
00152
! ls, in Ehe Courcrs vf
in that they rel-ate only t.haE
prornLse PlatnC,iff
Preveyte
is vague and at most, Plaintiff was capable of would liave the that this
Prevey believed
Plaintiff
opporbunlt,y to
research
ie irnrnaterl.al in
betng prevented
from. publishtng
aaBurance manuaL signed by D o c. N o . 2 4 , Ex. X, cover B t' alI aepecte of Company and malntenance proceduree of which tl impaet
tbe guality
eerrrJ.cesn and it
responsib.ility
e , e x pre ssl y
Eme].eyme$t -A!,,-WL].I.. This Agreement shaLl not conEtj,tuLe a contracE of employment, and.does not affecE !h" right of Company co termlnaEe the employment and Emptgye-e.i! time,- wit,h o.r withouts causel ai:a without f.iability "ryother than for any rrragea otrher t,han those earned by Employee Eo t,he date of-such E,ermination, rd. rndeed, the rule ln ohlo is that absen! fraud in E,he
w i n q v. A j n ch o r Me .. B ,._[r - td... oL,TeJ<as, r nc. , s7o N,E.2d 109s , 1099 ( o h t o tg 9 1 ) i T o h l L n e v. cenlr ar Tr ust co. , s49 N.E.2d L223, L227 31
00153
(ohio ct.
A p p . 1 9 8 8 ). ia
when a parcy
A clalm of fr aud in the inducem ent ar ises induced, co enE,er into an agreement chrough fraud r' sB M Ear ms.. r nc. v. woodq, 692 N' 8,2d 514,
o r m i e r e pre se n ta u i o n .
576(ohlo1998)'Acontract,orcontractualclauseobtalned voidable upon a ehowing of t,hrough .f raud in the Lnd,ucement is zio (ohto 1990). Harlqr v. Borror corp. , s3z N,E.2d, 207, fraud. or plainEiff, however, does not chatlenge Ehe vall'dity enforceability mere exlstence Ehe part,iee of Ehe emplo)rment'ac-wiIl ac-will of che empJ'oymenE clause' clause RaE.her' the le evidence that be at-wlll''
intended
Eggl*.tcrntoghv.FoadwavExPresg.Inc.'640N.E.zd57o,s74(ohlo dld not actually cr, App. L99al i This is true even if Plainttff read or underEBand Ehe. disclaimer, Teqh.,Inc.,9 Therefore, plaintiff'e the parEies E' Kiel w. cirg]riE Deslqn
62N.E''2d'5L1,3tsyl'1(Ohioct'App'1988)' the insertlon of the emplolmenc at-wLll agreement 1g cornpelllng the emplolmenE relat'ionshlp clauee in evidence thab be at-will' the Court
Therefore,
approPrlat,e ' As noE,ed above, Ehe second exceptJ-on to employrnent doctrine withln estoppel J.e when Che employer's estoppel d.oct,rine' In order
rePreEencations for
promissory
00154
represenLationuponwhichtheemployeereaEonablyrelied,andif EtorwtrethelE'heexpect'edactionorforbearanceactuallyresulted fromthemisrepresentat,ionorwasldetrimentaltotheemployee. Although Plaintif 3' N'E'Zd aL 151' 8y1' 4 3 8 , M e r s . EgSi thathedetrimentallyre}ied.onPrevey'gagguranceEthatlambda uasallhonest'andt,echnica}lycomPeEenEorganizationlndeciding tosignttrenoncompdtJ't,ionagreement,aslJafiibdacorrectlypolnts l1-o'c' ernplc the aB-wll'l brief ' reply out in its f, arguee
concained
agreemen' ln the noncompetltion +'"tTit 6' |oqf"' $ee M cInEoEh' o n p r omi sso ry e e to p p e l ' 562N.E,2datS2:^.AccordlnglY,sumrnaryJudgrment.inLambda|E egtoppel claim is apProprlate' favor on the promissory trnsumrnar:f'theCourtfindsthatsuflrnaryJudgmentiE appropriateonPlaint,l.f,f,|eclairnsfgrbreach'ofeontractand promissoryestoppeL'AccordinglY'themot'ionforsummary judgmentaEt'othoseclaimsis'weII-tsakenandleGRAlwtED,Thoge
CIAiMS ATE DISMISSED WITH PREJSDICE.
Plalnt'lf
alleges
trtrat
Lambda I s
in pertlnen.
plrt:
33
00155
rol-srepresentatsions regtrlations and all that it complled with aII federal' him and sEate inEo accepting indusUry sBandards induced
Ehan compete
sEaceE r,hab he evaluaE,ed the Eegr,ing bueiness, Lambda, buE found sEandarde sEandards, able to both the before coet of
option
employment
prohiblELve. plaintrtff
comply
Lambda argube
approprLate bring of
on t,hig
have sEanding to
he ie
have a reaporrable has suf,fered thac clairn rhan plaintiff although ttrose
intere.st
in preventlng injury.
advertising, with
grounds
asserced
rooted
sE,and,ing reguirement,E
good,s, services, P e rB o n , o r
or commercial activit,les
by another
(B)'tncommercialadvertislngorpromotsion' ml=represents t,he natsure, . eharacE,erLEtl'cs, qualiBlesr origln of his.or her or anogber pergonrg or gebgraphic -eelvJ-cee, or commercial' acclvitl'es' 9oo6", act!.on- ?y ?r,y person who J.n a civil shall be liable to be damaged he or Ehe ls or is'like1y iili hfiEves bY such act '
-r
00156
A court may sua sponte raise a Plaintiff'E Aruicle III a cl a im s t a n d i n g e o a sg e rt ( 5ih clr ' 1 1 5 F '3 d L266' L26g -' ' , vvrrN' o n rn 'n R l1q\a e q.. c
Lgg7l '
requirementsofertlclellloftheUnited,statsesConEtiuulion dictat'et}ratrtsherebealivecontroversyateachst,ageofthe In order t,o have scanding' Ln federal court' Iitigation plaintiffmugtmeetEhreeqeguiremental.l)theplatntiffmustr of a regarry fact - an invasron in inJury 'ave euffered the
protect'ed
interegtwhichieconcreEeandparuicu}arlzed,andactualand connection between the causal a be muat. t'trere 2) imminent, i must be of ' the lnjury complained conducts injury and Uhe and noE the acrr.on of Ehe defendanE charrenged the to Eraceabre resultof,theindependentactionofaomethird''n"=:"notbefore and no!'qrerely speculative' muet' be likel'y' it 3) and', courg; the by a favorable inJury wtll be redressed that uhe plaintiff'e 504 W i:ldlife' Ir ul4n v' Def,ender e of' co u rt' tkre fro m d e c i si o n U.S.555,560.61(1992).Adiecricucourtmaygrancsurnmar)f judgmentt,othedefendantw}rerethep}aintiff].ackeEtandingto v' Gen' contEacuors' of Am' Ass'oeiate4 9-r'91-,.r *s,' assert a clalm' A 812 (S'D'Ohlo 20Ol) '
I47 F- gupp '2d 864'
brief injurY
analYsJ-s of
plairitiff,s is noL a
eomPlalned of
tshat own argumenB llluEtrateE by result of any act'ion t'aken hiE o$tn
the
This at'at'ement waE Loo high. compliance of cos!' businesg buu tshe to oPeraEe -a materiale lnabllity Plbintiff' s E h a c l s a n a d mi ssi o n 35
00157
resE,ing laboraE,ory misrepresentations own lask of capigal. of results nof from Lambda's alleged of bhe L,anham Act has falled but to false from his the
ln violaEion Thus,
Plaintiff inquiry
saLisfy is Plaincif
t,he standing
a challenSe.d
actlon
of
have of
methode
E,o hlm.
comm|tmenC to
trhat
does
claim. claim ie
arrd is
?fI|r!I PREIN'DICE.
36
001s8
Conclugion for Inconcludion,theCourCfindEEhatLambdalsmot'ion BurnmaryJudgmentlswell-takeninallrespects.According}y,
motionforEummaryjudgment'(poc'No'21lieGRAlqfEDandthe amendedcompl.aintieDls}.tIssBDWITHPREin'DIcE-Asaresulcof ts motion Eo eubmlt' on auru'ary Jud,gment, Plaintiff the declsion Partofhlsexperttsreporcaf,EerthedigcoverYeutoffdater(Doc.
E.he
In addition''Irarnbd'arg
motj'on to eErj"ke
I'IOOT,
IT
IS
SO ORDERED
o^t" //'.1-? 1
Unifed St'aBes Dletrict
Judge
37
00159
ilLt-u
JIJDGMENT IN A
lft!. CaseNumber:
c-1-00-661 rr*.
Jo*nEl -
-Caa;d-
anil beve been bicdorheerd Theissues thcCourt. bcfore to trial or hearing came by Court, ThisBtion l{ Decislon basbecnrendcred' a decision AI.ID ADJTIDGED rT IS ORDERED IUDGMENTIDOC.zUGRA}ITED A}TDTHISCASEIS MOfiON FORSTJMMARY THATDEFEI'IDAI'TTS'
t-
33