DeMartini, et al. v. DeMartini, et al.

Filing 191

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/14/2017 DENYING 181 Motion to Compel; DENYING 189 Motion for Extension of Time. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY DEMARTINI, et al., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2722 JAM CKD PS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER MICHAEL DEMARTINI, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to compel further deposition of plaintiff 18 Margie DeMartini. The motion was submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review 19 of the documents submitted in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE 20 COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 21 Defendants move to compel the further deposition of plaintiff Margie DeMartini. 22 Defendants contend that plaintiff’s counsel made hundreds of unnecessary objections, coached 23 the deponent and improperly instructed the deponent to not answer questions seeking non- 24 privileged information. Although defendants have not set forth the specific questions at issue, 25 defendants have provided what they contend are illustrative examples of unwarranted interference 26 with their deposition questions. 27 28 The court has reviewed the entirety of the transcript of the deposition of plaintiff Margie DeMartini, taken on January 12, 2017 in Reno, Nevada. The court finds the conduct of plaintiff’s 1 1 counsel to be well within the bounds of professional conduct. While the court does not on this 2 motion rule on the specific objections, which are a matter for the trial court, should the deposition 3 be used at trial, the objections made generally appear to be well founded, or at the minimum, 4 those that would be made by a vigorous advocate. Nor does it appear that plaintiff’s counsel 5 engaged in unwarranted coaching of the deponent. Defendants have been afforded a full and fair 6 opportunity to depose plaintiff Margie DeMartini. No further deposition will be allowed. 7 Defendants have also requested an extension of the discovery cut-off. Upon review of the 8 entire docket and consideration of the discovery necessary in this case and the amount of time this 9 matter has been pending, the court finds defendants have failed to show good cause for further 10 modification of the scheduling order. The motion will therefore be denied. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 181) is denied; and 13 2. Defendants’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 189) is denied. 14 Dated: February 14, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 4 demartini2722.depo 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?