DeMARTINI v. DeMARTINI

No. 2:14-cv-2722 JAM CKD PS.

TIMOTHY DEMARTINI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL DEMARTINI, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Timothy P. DeMartini, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk S. Rimmer , Law Offices Of Kirk S. Rimmer.

Timothy P. DeMartini, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Kleinbrodt , The Freitas Law Firm LLP.

Margie DeMartini, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk S. Rimmer , Law Offices Of Kirk S. Rimmer & Peter A. Kleinbrodt , The Freitas Law Firm LLP.

Michael J. DeMartini, Defendant, Pro Se.

Renate DeMartini, Defendant, Pro Se.

Renate DeMartini, Defendant, Pro Se.

Renate DeMartini, Counter Claimant, Pro Se.

Michael J. DeMartini, Counter Claimant, Pro Se.

Margie DeMartini, Counter Defendant, represented by Kirk S. Rimmer , Law Offices Of Kirk S. Rimmer & Peter A. Kleinbrodt , The Freitas Law Firm LLP.

Timothy P. DeMartini, Counter Defendant, represented by Kirk S. Rimmer , Law Offices Of Kirk S. Rimmer & Peter A. Kleinbrodt , The Freitas Law Firm LLP.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is defendants' motion to compel further deposition of plaintiff Margie DeMartini. The motion was submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents submitted in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendants move to compel the further deposition of plaintiff Margie DeMartini.

Defendants contend that plaintiff's counsel made hundreds of unnecessary objections, coached the deponent and improperly instructed the deponent to not answer questions seeking non-privileged information. Although defendants have not set forth the specific questions at issue, defendants have provided what they contend are illustrative examples of unwarranted interference with their deposition questions.

The court has reviewed the entirety of the transcript of the deposition of plaintiff Margie DeMartini, taken on January 12, 2017 in Reno, Nevada. The court finds the conduct of plaintiff's counsel to be well within the bounds of professional conduct. While the court does not on this motion rule on the specific objections, which are a matter for the trial court, should the deposition be used at trial, the objections made generally appear to be well founded, or at the minimum, those that would be made by a vigorous advocate. Nor does it appear that plaintiff's counsel engaged in unwarranted coaching of the deponent. Defendants have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to depose plaintiff Margie DeMartini. No further deposition will be allowed.

Defendants have also requested an extension of the discovery cut-off. Upon review of the entire docket and consideration of the discovery necessary in this case and the amount of time this matter has been pending, the court finds defendants have failed to show good cause for further modification of the scheduling order. The motion will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 181) is denied; and

2. Defendants' motion for extension of time (ECF No. 189) is denied.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases