Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-03389_de63> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03389_de63 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-09" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03389_de63 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Defendant's motion to compel 58 is granted in part and denied in part. In its motion, Defendant seeks an order directing Plaintiff to supplement his discovery answers and allowing it to continue with Plaintiff's deposition free of obstructions from Plaintiff and his attorney. As for the former, the motion is denied as moot because Rule 26(e) already obligates the parties to timely supplement their initial disclosures and discovery responses. For example, Rule 26(e) required Plaintiff to supplement his answers to Defendant's Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4 months ago in 2019. If he has not already done so, Plaintiff may be barred from offering any testimony responsive to these interrogatories. As for the latter relief sought, the motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff's October 14, 2020 deposition must be continued and that Defendant is permitted to examine Plaintiff on the record for an additional five hours. Having reviewed the entire deposition transcript, (R. 58-1), the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff failed to respond to even simple questions posed and was evasive in answering many of Defendant's questions primarily because of the unnecessary speaking objections posed by his attorney, (see, e.g., R. 58-1 at 7-9, 11, 24, 26, 43, 49, 69, 101). If any objection has to be posed during a deposition based on the form of the question or on privilege, Plaintiff's attorney may do so on the record concisely and allow Plaintiff to answer the question unless the objection is based on privilege. Plaintiff's counsel must not pose a speaking objection with instructions to Plaintiff on how to answer questions, (see, e.g., R. 23, 40, 41, 49-51, and 103). There also was no need for Plaintiff's counsel to have made snide and petty comments during the deposition, (see, e.g., R. 13, 23, 36, 87, and 91). The court agrees that some of the deposition questions are not relevant to the issues in this case, (see, e.g., id. at 17, 28, 34), but Defendant has the right to depose Plaintiff and investigate his background so long as Defendant is not harassing him. And the court does not find that Defendant was harassing Plaintiff during the October 2020 deposition. Many questions had to be posed for very simple topics and many questions repeated several times because Plaintiff refused to answer them in full. In fact, the transcript clearly shows that Defendant did its best to be cooperative and accommodating to Plaintiff. The basic problem was that Plaintiff assumed incorrectly (presumably triggered by his attorney's unnecessary objections) that every question he answered for Defendant would harm his case. The second session of Plaintiff's deposition must be scheduled and completed by December 4, 2020. If exhibits must be used during the deposition, Defendant should email the pre-marked exhibits to Plaintiff within two business days prior to the second session. Otherwise, the time spent sending the exhibits (if the video platform does not allow for sharing documents) to Plaintiff and his attorney during the second session must be counted toward the five hours remaining. The court will not impose any monetary sanctions at this time but if Plaintiff engages in similar behavior during the second session, the court will impose monetary and non-monetary sanctions. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 11/09/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03389_de63 AdministrativeID "63" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03389_de63 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03389_de58 @default.