Logunovskiy v. Geico, Government Employees Insurance Company
Filing
29
COURTROOM MINUTES for Motion Hearing held on 7/31/2014 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. ORDERED: Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 20 is GRANTED IN PART, as stated on record. FTR: KMT C201. (sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No:
Courtroom Deputy:
13-cv-02644-REB-KMT
Sabrina Grimm
Date: July 31, 2014
FTR: Courtroom C-201
Parties:
Counsel:
REBECCA LOGUNOVSKIY, an individual,
Edward Holub
Plaintiff,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Maryland corporation
Michael Simpson
Defendant.
COURTROOM MINUTES
MOTION HEARING
10:21 a.m.
Court in session.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.
Court states its understanding of the issue.
Discussion and argument regarding the deposition of Lisa Thomopulos and the Rule 30(b)(6)
designee of the Defendant.
Court states the company’s policies or compliance with policy is not relevant when no bad faith
claim is asserted. The adjuster may be asked what she considered, what she did not consider and
if she did not consider something, why she did not consider it. How she evaluated the case is
irrelevant.
Mr. Simpson states background information with respect to the accident and Defendant’s
position that Plaintiff’s miscarriage is not a covered event.
Discussion and review of the topics contained in the Notice of Deposition of Defendant at
document [20-2].
ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [20] is GRANTED IN PART, as
stated on record.
Court confirms that Ms. Thompulos is subject to the same rulings as the Rule 30(b)(6) witness as
far as permissible topics.
11:06 a.m.
Court in recess.
Hearing concluded.
Total in-court time 00:45
*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.
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?