Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00567/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00567-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury-Product Liability

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES ROBERT PERRY PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:05CV567GH

ETHICON, INC.; ET AL. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are a number of motions. The Court has reviewed the

motions, responses, replies and applicable law and rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce discovery order for design drawings: Counsel for

plaintiff advised the Court that he has now received the design drawings requesting.

Thus, the motion to enforce discovery order (document no. 106) is denied as moot.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to quash defendant’s notice of intent to take the second

deposition of Ricardo Tovar: Plaintiff objects to defendant’s request to take another

deposition of Ricardo Tovar regarding the identification of the instrument involved.

Plaintiff states that Tovar’s deposition has already been taken, that discovery is closed

and that defendant is now attempting to reverse Tovar’s previous deposition testimony.

Defendant counters that because there is a controversy over what instrument was used

during plaintiff’s surgery, the testimony of Tovar, the employee who did the product

analysis on the device in question, has become more important. Defendant states that

additional facts need to be developed. Defendant notes that Tovar is a Mexican citizen

who will require a Spanish interpreter. Defendant states it would be more expeditious and

less time consuming and expensive for the testimony of Tovar to be presented by

deposition. Defendant further notes that the deposition falls within the ambit of the Court’s

order allowing limited discovery based on plaintiff’s new expert.

The Court finds that the notice of deposition should be quashed. As Tovar is

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 120 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

defendant’s employee, he can appear at trial. That his testimony will have to be

translated is not, in the Court’s opinion, reason to require plaintiff’s counsel to travel to El

Paso, Texas to take a second deposition. 

Thus, the motion to quash the notice of deposition (document no. 108) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2006.

___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 120 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2