Linderman v. Nichols

Filing 85

ORDER: Depositions are ordered to take place as follows: Catherine Linderman on 8/18/2014, Scott Bailey on 8/19/2014 and David Cains on 8/20/2014. Motion to Compel 81 is granted. Initial disclosures are due by 8/11/2014. The court declines to award fees related to this motion. Signed on 7/30/2014 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) Corrected typographical error on 7/30/2014 (plb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

6: 12-cv-1703-TC

CATHERINE L. LINDERMAN, M.D.
Plaintiff,

ORDER
v.
VONA HUGGINS NICHOLS, aka VONA E
HUGGINS; STONEWALL FARMS, LLC;
and DAVID CAINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
d.b.a. STONEWALL FARM ARABIANS,
Defendants.
COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:
The parties cannot agree on the order of depositions and have submitted the matter to the
court for resolution. Given that plaintiff has the burden in the case and the initial responsibility of
stating her claim, the court will require the following order for the depositions to take place between
August 18th and 20th, 2014: 1
August 18, 2014, Plaintiff Catherine Linderman;

1

The court is mindful that plaintiff Linderman has already been deposed once in this
proceeding, but the claims against defendant Cains had not then been alleged.
Page 1 - ORDER

August 19, 2014, Scott Bailey; and
August 20, 2014, Defendant David Cains.
In addition, the court, now having the benefit of plaintiffs briefing, grants defendant Cains'
motion to compel plaintiff to make initial disclosures (#81 ), and such shall disclosures shall be made
by August 11, 2014. Although "it is expected" that later-added parties are "ordinarily" treated the
same as original parties when the original parties have stipulated to forego initial disclosures, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D) (Advisory Committee Notes to 2000 revisions), the circumstances of the case
and added claims necessitate that such disclosures be made with respect to the amended complaint
adding defendants Cains and Stonewall Farms. 2

The court declines to award fees related to this

motion.

~
DATED this 1::!day of July 2014.

2

Even if the original parties stipulate to bypass disclosure, the court can order exchange of
similar information in managing the action under Rule 16. Advisory Committee Notes to 2000
Amendment, subdivision (a)(1). The present circumstances make clear that court management
of discovery is necessary.
Page 2 - ORDER