Transportation Alliance Bank, Inc. v. Arrow Trucking Co. et al

Filing 118

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 114 Motion for Protective Order (jcm, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE BANK,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.10-CV-16-GKF-FHM

ARROW TRUCKING CO., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Carol Pielsticker Bump’s Motion for Protective Order and/or a Limited
Stay of Discovery [Dkt. 114] is before the court for decision. The court ordered an
expedited response to the motion which has now been filed. [Dkt. 117].
The motion seeks to defer the deposition of Defendant Carol Pielsticker Bump until
after the court rules on Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. [Dkt. 113].
Defendant contends she will suffer an undue burden if her deposition is held as noticed
and further contends that Plaintiff will suffer no harm by deferring the deposition. Plaintiff
responds that Defendant’s deposition is needed to respond to Defendant’s motion for
partial summary judgment and that Defendant will have to be deposed even if Defendant’s
motion for partial summary judgment is granted.
The court finds that Defendant has not established good cause to defer her
deposition until the court rules on Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Defendant’s deposition is needed for Plaintiff to be in a position to respond to the motion.
Moreover, Defendant will not suffer undue prejudice by being deposed. Participation in
discovery is an ordinary burden of being involved in litigation.

Defendant Carol Pielsticker Bump’s Motion for Protective Order and/or a Limited
Stay of Discovery [Dkt. 114] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2011.

2