Pennington v. Parmar et al
ORDER granting 58 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 12/8/17. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
LOLITA PENNINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE AND WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF ANDRIANA HALL,
) Civil Action No.: 3:16cv248-NBB-JMV
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
UPS GROUND FREIGHT INC.
a/k/a UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to quash notices of expert depositions .
Consistent with the Court’s ruling during a telephonic hearing held today, the motion is
The notices of depositions were made without consultation as to the availability of the
deponents and/or Plaintiff's’ counsel and were for dates within just days of the notices.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is well taken, and the notices of depositions are quashed.
During the course of the hearing, the parties indicated an inability or unwillingness to
voluntarily set the remaining depositions in the case within the existing deadlines which, absent a
trial continuance, cannot be further extended. The Court, accordingly, orders that the remaining
depositions–the two 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants, the Plaintiffs’ experts’ depositions, and
Defendants’ expert deposition(s)--shall be taken in the following order: 30(b)(6) depositions;
Plaintiffs’ expert depositions; Defendants’ expert depositions. Defendants’ expert designation
deadline is, and shall remain, December 19, 2017. The parties are required to settle on dates for
completion of these depositions in this order and within the current deadlines. However, the
parties may mutually agree not to take one or more of the depositions or may seek a trial
continuance which, if promptly granted, may permit deposition scheduling to be reconsidered.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of December, 2017.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. Magistrate Judge
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?