Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00413/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

DAVID AND KIMBERLY BASS,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND

AND WIFE. PLAINTIFFS

vs. CASE NO. 3:04CV00413GH

FLYING J. INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to quash defendants’ notice of video

deposition. The notice schedules the evidentiary deposition of Dr. Mark Capehart, an orthopedic

surgeon in Tulsa, Oklahoma who conducted an independent medical examination of plaintiff David

Bass. The deposition is scheduled for August 7, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. 

It appears that the parties have had difficulties scheduling Dr. Capehart’s deposition prior

to August 7th, which is one week before the trial of this action. Plaintiffs contend that they have not

been provided any reports concerning Dr. Capehart’s opinions. Defendants counter that they have

provided Dr. Capehart’s report and there is nothing further for defendants to provide plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs also wish to do a discovery deposition prior to the videotaped evidentiary deposition.

Defendants do not object to this request even though the discovery deadline has passed. 

Plaintiffs also contend that their counsel will be unavailable. One counsel is scheduled to

be in Little Rock District Court that day although it does not appear that the court matter will take

all day. Co-counsel is scheduled to be out of town that day, although plaintiffs do not indicate the

reason. Defendants state that if necessary, plaintiffs’ counsel can participate by telephone.

The Court is not persuaded that there is good reason for quash the notice of deposition. It

appears that plaintiffs’ counsel can make arrangements for at least one of the attorneys to attend the

deposition is necessary or to participate by telephone. Defendants have agreed to allow discovery

Case 3:04-cv-00413-BRW Document 32 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

of Dr. Capehart prior to the evidentiary deposition.

Accordingly, the motion to quash and to exclude expert witness is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00413-BRW Document 32 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2