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.)

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