Filing 21

STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO ORDER OF 4/14/2006 ..... MOTION to Quash Defendant's Notice of Depositon by ROBERT STEINBUCH. (Rosen, Jonathan) Modified on 4/18/2006 (bm).

Download PDF
STEINBUCH v. CUTLER Doc. 21 Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 21 Filed 04/08/2006 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ STEINBUCH ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CASE No. 01:05-CV-00970 (PLF) v. ) CUTLER ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) MOTION TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Counsel for the defendant, John Umana, filed a Notice of Deposition of the plaintiff with the court. Such action is patently in violation of LCvR 5.2(a). LCvR 5.2(a) states: Except as otherwise provided by this Rule, interrogatories, depositions, requests for documents, requests for admissions, and answers and responses thereto shall be served upon other counsel and parties but shall not be filed with the Clerk until they are used in the proceeding or upon order of the Court as required below. Moreover, Umana violated Fed.R.Civ.P.26(d) by attempting to seek discovery before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d) states that: Except in categories of proceedings exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(E), or when authorized under these rules or by order or agreement of the parties, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). We realize that Umana is new to this case, but that is no excuse for not being familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court prior to filing with this Court. Indeed, this Court warned the parties in open court on May 5, 2006 to restrain Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 21 Filed 04/08/2006 Page 2 of 2 themselves from making this matter more litigious than necessary given the personal, highly emotional nature of this legal action. And, perhaps not coincidentally, Umana objected to the assignment of a Magistrate Judge in this case to handle discovery matters. Nonetheless, Umana made both an obviously improper filing with this court and violated the Rules regarding discovery. Accordingly, this Court should quash Defendant's Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff. Dated: April 8, 2006 Respectfully Submitted, /Jonathan Rosen/ Jonathan Rosen (NY0046) 1200 Gulf Blvd., #1506 Clearwater, FL 33767 (908) 759-1116 Attorney for Plaintiff 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?