Filed: Feb. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POSTPONE FEBRUARY 27, 2019, DEPOSITION Re: Dkt. No. 76 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant's Motion, filed February 22, 2019, whereby defendant seeks an order postponing his deposition, which is scheduled for February 27, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff has filed opposition. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court hereby rules as follows. At the Case Management Conference conducted F
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POSTPONE FEBRUARY 27, 2019, DEPOSITION Re: Dkt. No. 76 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant's Motion, filed February 22, 2019, whereby defendant seeks an order postponing his deposition, which is scheduled for February 27, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff has filed opposition. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court hereby rules as follows. At the Case Management Conference conducted Fe..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POSTPONE FEBRUARY 27, 2019, DEPOSITION
Re: Dkt. No. 76
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant's Motion, filed February 22, 2019, whereby defendant seeks an order postponing his deposition, which is scheduled for February 27, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff has filed opposition. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court hereby rules as follows.
At the Case Management Conference conducted February 8, 2019, the Court directed defendant to appear for his deposition on February 27, 2019. In his motion, defendant fails to show good cause exists to continue the deposition to a later date. In particular, defendant has failed to show that, during any period of delay, there is a likelihood he will be able to retain counsel to represent him,1 nor has he shown that the settlement conference, scheduled for April 24, 2019, is likely to be productive in the absence of his having been deposed.2
Accordingly, defendant's motion for an order postponing his deposition is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The above-titled action has been pending for approximately one year.
2. At the Case Management Conference, the Court selected the February 27 date after first confirming with defendant that he had staff available on that date to conduct business in his absence. In the instant motion, defendant does not assert that he cannot, for business or other reasons, appear on February 27 for his deposition.
