Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 RegisterActionDate "2020-07-17" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Beth W. Jantz: Motion hearing held on Plaintiff's motion to compel 98 and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 100 . The Court denies Defendant's motion for Protective Order 100 to stay the depositions of 2 German deponents for 90 days so that defense counsel can safely travel to Germany. The Court finds that given COVID-19 health and safety concerns and the current travel restrictions in Germany, (see dkt. 105-4), there is '''good cause' for remote videoconference depositions." Sonrai Systems v. Romano, No. 16 CV 3371, 2020 WL 3960441, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2020); see also In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 2020 WL 3469166, at *8 (remote depositions appropriate "to protect the safety and health of witnesses, counsel, court reporters, videographers, and other persons, and to move this case through the pretrial process at an acceptable pace during a time when in-person depositions may present risks to the health and safety of people participating in them."). Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion to stay subject to the parties' ability to work out a format of the depositions that is acceptable to both sides along the lines of what the Court has directed on the record. The depositions of the two German deponents shall be scheduled by 08/14/2020 and completed by 09/18/2020. Plaintiff's motion to compel 99 is granted in part and denied in part. The Court overrules Defendant's objection to exceeding the presumptive number of interrogatories under Rule 33(a) given that the number is only 5 to 15 over the limit and the issues deal with what appear to be complicated technical matters. Regarding Interrogatory No. 1, Defendant must provide more specific citations to sections and/or page numbers of the operating instructions manual when responding to this interrogatory. Before Defendant submits a supplemental response, Plaintiff must re-write the interrogatory with more specificity in terms of what it is asking regarding what Mr. Lundstrom saw or thought. As to Interrogatory No. 2, defense counsel indicated that Defendant can now answer the question based on the guidance from the Court on Interrogatory #1. As to Interrogatory No. 3, Plaintiff has no objection to Defendant's proposal on how to respond to this interrogatory laid out at the hearing. Plaintiff shall revise Interrogatory No. 1 by July 24, 2020. Defendant shall respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 3 by 08/07/2020. Parties shall file a joint status report by 9/22/2020. (rbf, ) (Entered: 07/22/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 AdministrativeID "106" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de100 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de101 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de107 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-02391_de99 @default.