5-13-11 Motion for Protective Order (2).pdf - Blogs.courant.com

The defendant, via a Motion for Protective Order, objected to that Notice of Deposition
and set forth four reasons: 1. The Applicable Discovery Deadline has Passed; 2. Discovery is
Stayed Until Thirty Days Following Verdict: 3. Fifteen Days’ Notice is Required; and 4, The
Proposed Deposition Would Impose an Undue Hardship on the Witness and the Defendant. As
to the Fourth reason. St. Francis argued at page 4 of its brief that. To require St. Francis
simultaneously to prepare for and to conduct that jury selection and trial while also preparing for
and attending the deposition of Dr. Godar would be unduly burdensome to St. Francis, which
therefore requests that the deposition of Dr. Godar be stayed until the conclusion of the Tim Doe
Case.”
The plaintiff agrees with the defense that it is unduly burdensome for I)ay Pitney and its
350 lawyers located in nine different offices to he subjected to trying the case and to taking
depositions.
Interestingly, only one day after filing its Motion for Protective Order, the defense sent an
email indicating that they were going to be issuing a Notice of Deposition for the plaintiff’s sister
who resides in Middlehurv. VT and of a work colleague of the plaintiff for dates when jury
selection is actually being conducted. Certainly, the taking of depositions can not he a one wa
street. If the defense is unable to defend a deposition before jury selection even begins, it can not
be allowed to take depositions during jury selection.
T5-EMONT & SHELDON P. C.
54 L.. TEr 05604 203 335545 N 064450