Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to priority of examination because he served the first notice of examination on May 25, 2005, after defendants' time to answer had expired. Defendants' attorney represents that on May 24, plaintiff's attorney orally agreed to extend defendants' time to answer to June 1, 2005, and, relying on such agreement, he served defendants' answer and notice of examination on that date, thus retaining defendants' normal priority of examination under...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
