IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

OF DEFENDANT JOHN (BUD) AIKEN

AND NOW, this day of March, 2004, comes Plaintiff. by and through counsel, and requests 

this Honorable Court to order Defendant John (Bud) Aiken to appear for deposition in this case 

pursuant to F. R. C. P. 37 (a) and (d) for the following reasons: 

 1. Plaintiff first requested Defendant Aiken's deposition by Notice dated October 24, 

2003 scheduling the deposition for November 18, 2003. 

 2. Defendant Aiken's deposition was rescheduled on November 7, 2003 by agreement of 

counsel, with Notice to take place December 8, 2003. 

 3. Defendant Aiken's deposition again was rescheduled by agreement of counsel, on 

December 2, 2003 to take place by Notice for January 20, 2004. 

 3. The January 20, 2004 deposition of Mr. Aiken was postponed a third time, on January 

16, 2004, by agreement of counsel due to defense counsel's unavailability but no alternative 

dates were provided to Plaintiff. 

 4. On February 9, 2004 Plaintiff rescheduled Defendant Aiken's deposition for the fourth 

time, by Notice, to take place March 1, 2004. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 12 Filed 03/08/2004 Page 1 of 3
 5. Defense counsel later confirmed this deposition date for Mr. Aiken, along with the 

deposition of Beverly Miller, a member of the Board of Directors of Greater Hatboro Chamber 

of Commerce, which was also rescheduled for March 1, 2004. 

 6.On February 25, 2004 Defense counsel's office cancelled Mr. Aiken's deposition stating 

Mr. Aiken "had to be out of town." The deposition of Beverly Miller was also cancelled, without 

explanation or alternate dates for either the Aiken or Miller depositions. 

 7. Plaintiff learned that Mr. Aiken voluntarily took a pleasure trip to Florida shortly 

before his fourth rescheduled deposition, after the date of March 1 was confirmed. 

 8. Plaintiff believes Mr. Aiken will not appear for deposition without Order of Court, 

despite efforts of his counsel and cooperation between counsel. This statement is pursuant to 

Local Federal Rule 26.1 (f) as this matter cannot be resolved without assistance of the Court. 

 9. No depositions have yet been taken in this case, which was filed in July 2002. 

Discovery cutoff is May 17, 2004. Plaintiff cannot prepare for trial without Aiken's deposition. 

 10. Mr. Aiken's fifth rescheduled deposition is being Noticed for Thursday April 1, 2004. 

If Mr. Aiken does not appear, Plaintiff requests a hearing for imposition of sanctions under Rule 

37 (b)(2) and (d), preventing Mr. Aiken from testifying at trial or defending Plaintiff's charges. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the deposition of Defendant Aiken be ordered 

to take place forthwith, no later than April 1, 2004, or that defendant Aiken be precluded from 

testifying at trial of this case and defending Plaintiff's claims against him. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 ___________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire ID# 28086 

 Counsel for Plaintiff Dee Barrett 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 12 Filed 03/08/2004 Page 2 of 3
 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 12 Filed 03/08/2004 Page 3 of 3