Challenge The Outrage Complaint For Lack Of Specificity?

Often the allegations made in a complaint do not, even assuming they are true, support the outrage claim made later therein.  In Weiss v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., issued 1/20/06, Judge Heyburn ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint setting forth with greater specificity their allegations concerning their outrage claim against defendants. Judge Heyburn ordered that, "The failure of any of the current plaintiffs to meet the required specificity of allegations that support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress will result in dismissal of those claims."  The plaintiffs claimed that defendants' motion was premature given that discovery had not begun.  Judge Heyburn responded, "The facts which might support such a claim should be within the control of Plaintiffs. After all, a prerequisite for such a claim concerns the Defendants' actions upon Plaintiffs."  Query whether this approach simply educates the plaintiffs and will ultimately make a dispositive motion harder to obtain?  Where outrage will be the only claim left in a case, then I agree with the approach taken in this case because the plaintiffs would likely focus on the claim anyway and a more specific complaint gives defendants a more defined target to shoot at.  If outrage was one of many claims, then I would not raise the issue and hope plaintiffs have not done their homework prior to depositions.
The decision is here: Download Weiss12006.pdf