HOBART CORPORATION v. THE DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO., 3:13-cv-115. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20170103631
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ALLOW A SECOND DEPOSITION OF EDWARD GRILLOT (DOC. #488) WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . As discussed with counsel during the conference call held on November 15, 2016, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine or, in the Alternative, to Allow a Second Deposition of Edward Grillot. 1 Doc. #488. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), because of Mr. Grillot's dec
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ALLOW A SECOND DEPOSITION OF EDWARD GRILLOT (DOC. #488) WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . As discussed with counsel during the conference call held on November 15, 2016, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine or, in the Alternative, to Allow a Second Deposition of Edward Grillot. 1 Doc. #488. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), because of Mr. Grillot's decl..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ALLOW A SECOND DEPOSITION OF EDWARD GRILLOT (DOC. #488)
WALTER H. RICE, District Judge.
As discussed with counsel during the conference call held on November 15, 2016, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine or, in the Alternative, to Allow a Second Deposition of Edward Grillot.1 Doc. #488. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), because of Mr. Grillot's declining health, Plaintiffs are granted leave to take a second deposition, limited to four hours, and limited to testimony concerning the Dayton Daily News, Dayton Journal Herald and McCall. Defendants Cox Media Group Ohio, Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products Company, LLC, may participate in that deposition.
FootNotes
1. The Court makes no ruling at this time on Plaintiffs' request that, in the event Mr. Grillot is unavailable to testify at trial, his 2012 deposition testimony and 2016 Declaration are admissible.
Source: Leagle
