Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02722/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02722-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY DEMARTINI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL DEMARTINI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2722 JAM CKD PS

ORDER

Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to compel further deposition of plaintiff 

Margie DeMartini. The motion was submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review 

of the documents submitted in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE 

COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendants move to compel the further deposition of plaintiff Margie DeMartini. 

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s counsel made hundreds of unnecessary objections, coached 

the deponent and improperly instructed the deponent to not answer questions seeking nonprivileged information. Although defendants have not set forth the specific questions at issue, 

defendants have provided what they contend are illustrative examples of unwarranted interference 

with their deposition questions.

The court has reviewed the entirety of the transcript of the deposition of plaintiff Margie 

DeMartini, taken on January 12, 2017 in Reno, Nevada. The court finds the conduct of plaintiff’s 

Case 2:14-cv-02722-DJC-CKD Document 191 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

counsel to be well within the bounds of professional conduct. While the court does not on this 

motion rule on the specific objections, which are a matter for the trial court, should the deposition 

be used at trial, the objections made generally appear to be well founded, or at the minimum, 

those that would be made by a vigorous advocate. Nor does it appear that plaintiff’s counsel 

engaged in unwarranted coaching of the deponent. Defendants have been afforded a full and fair 

opportunity to depose plaintiff Margie DeMartini. No further deposition will be allowed.

Defendants have also requested an extension of the discovery cut-off. Upon review of the 

entire docket and consideration of the discovery necessary in this case and the amount of time this 

matter has been pending, the court finds defendants have failed to show good cause for further 

modification of the scheduling order. The motion will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 181) is denied; and

2. Defendants’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 189) is denied.

Dated: February 14, 2017

4 demartini2722.depo

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02722-DJC-CKD Document 191 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 2