- 4 -
(1) On April 11, 2001, an Application for Order To Take
Deposition of George Evans was received from petitioner.
Petitioner did not attach a copy of the notice of deposition to
the application as required by Rule 75(d), and the application
was untimely. See Rule 70(a)(2). Respondent objected to the
deposition.
(2) Petitioner served a subpoena duces tecum on George Evans
(Mr. Evans) to appear for the purpose of taking the deposition.
On April 24, 2001, respondent timely filed a Motion to Quash
Subpoena Duces Tecum, which the Court granted.
(3) On April 11, 2001, petitioner’s “Motion for the
Protective Order” was received, the gravamen of which is totally
unclear except that the motion refers to the deposition of the
“sole witness”. The granting of respondent’s motion to quash
disposed of all questions dealing with the deposition.
(4) On April 26, 2001, petitioner filed a “Motion for
Sanctions on Respondent” relating to the deposition of Mr. Evans.
That motion was denied at the hearing held on May 17, 2001.
(5) On May 9, 2001, the Court received from petitioner a
“Pre-Trial Order” that contained various attachments–-a Motion
for Continuation, a proposed Stipulation for Facts, and a
“Request to Admit to Respondent”. Respondent treated the latter
document as a request for admissions and filed a response on May
14, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011