Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moffett v. Keolis Transit America, Inc., 2:18-CV-01678-GMN-EJY. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20200122f83 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2020
Summary: ORDER ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 83) and Motion to Shorten Time (ECF No. 84). In its Motion to Shorten Time, Defendant explains that because a deposition of a former executive is set for February 7, 2020, and Plaintiff (who is pro se ) has refused to vacate the deposition, shortened time is appropriately granted. Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's deposition notice of its former
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Keolis Transit America, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 83) and Motion to Shorten Time (ECF No. 84). In its Motion to Shorten Time, Defendant explains that because a deposition of a former executive is set for February 7, 2020, and Plaintiff (who is pro se) has refused to vacate the deposition, shortened time is appropriately granted.

Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's deposition notice of its former executive is based solely on the fact that the individual is, in fact, "no longer the company's CEO" and "is no longer an employee" of Defendant. Defendant states that it would have other objections to Plaintiff's deposition notice if the former CEO were still an employee. Defendant does not indicate that Plaintiff is precluded from seeking the deposition of its former CEO, but apparently leaves other potential objections to that individual (or counsel, if any) should a subpoena and notice to the former CEO be served. Defendant makes reasonable, albeit obviously hasty arguments.

Plaintiff shall be entitled to respond to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 83) on shortened time. Plaintiff's response shall therefore be due on or before January 27, 2020. Plaintiff's response shall be limited to the single issue raised in Defendant's Motion for Protective Order; that is, the individual Plaintiff seeks to depose is not an employee of Defendant and, therefore, Defendant cannot be required to produce this individual for deposition.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Order Shortening Time (ECF No. 84) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through 5 p.m. on January 27, 2020 to file a response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff's response shall be limited to the issue raised by Defendant as stated above. Plaintiff's response should be concise.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a reply shall not be permitted except by leave of Court.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer