1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MSCI 2007-IQ16 GRANVILLE RETAIL, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. Case No. 2:11-cv-487 

 Magistrate Judge King 

UHA CORPORATION, LLC, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This is a diversity action in which plaintiff, as assignee, seeks 

a money judgment, declaratory relief and foreclosure of mortgaged 

premises in Delaware, Fairfield and Franklin Counties, and associated 

leases and personal property, following the alleged default of 

defendant UHA Corporation, LLC (“UHA”), on a commercial loan. ECF 29.1

 

UHA asserts a counterclaim. ECF 36. This matter is before the Court 

on Defendant UHA’s Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 

26(c) With Respect to the Deposition of Uziel Haimoff, Presently 

Noticed for July 31, 2014, ECF 55 (“Motion for Protective Order”). 

 Following a preliminary pretrial conference, held pursuant to the 

provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court issued an order 

requiring that, inter alia, all discovery be completed by May 15, 

2014, and that dispositive motions be filed no later than June 15, 

 

1 This case, which was originally filed on June 6, 2011, was administratively 

closed pending resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings of defendant UHA, see 

Order, ECF 11, but the case was reactivated on October 23, 2013. Order, ECF 

13. On November 15, 2013, MSCI 2007-IQ16 Granville Retail, LLC, was 

substituted as plaintiff. Agreed Order, ECF 16. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00487-NMK Doc #: 65 Filed: 09/02/14 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

2014. Preliminary Pretrial Order, ECF 21, p. 2. At the request of 

the parties, and with the consent of the Court, the deadlines for 

completing discovery and filing dispositive motions were extended to 

June 30, 2014 and July 31, 2014, respectively. ECF 37. 

 The deposition of UHA’s sole member and officer, Uziel Haimoff, 

was originally scheduled for June 30, 2014. Motion for Protective 

Order, pp. 1-2; Response of Plaintiff MSCI 2007-IQ16 Granville Retail, 

LLC to Defendant UHA Corporation, LLC’s Motion for Protective Order, 

ECF 59, p. 1 (“Plaintiff’s Response”).2

 Because of a “late conflict” 

with Mr. Haimoff’s schedule, the deposition was continued to July 9, 

2014. Motion for Protective Order, p. 2. During a conference with 

the Court on that date, however, counsel for UHA represented that Mr. 

Haimoff was again unavoidably unable to sit for his deposition. 

Order, ECF 54. Under those circumstances, the parties again agreed, 

with the Court’s approval, to extend the discovery deadline to July 

31, 2014, and the dispositive motion deadline to August 15, 2014. Id. 

In extending these deadlines, the Court noted that this was the second 

time that the deposition of UHA’s representative had been continued at 

his request. Id. The Court advised that there would be no further 

continuance of the deposition and that failure of UHA’s representative 

to appear for his deposition by July 31, 2014, may result in the 

imposition of sanctions, including the possible entry of default on 

the claims against UHA. Id. 

 On July 29, 2014, UHA moved for a protective order, representing 

 

2 Although the representations in these filings are not signed under penalty of 

perjury, the Court nevertheless will refer to the parties’ history of the 

discovery proceedings in this case for purposes of resolving the Motion for 

Protective Order. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00487-NMK Doc #: 65 Filed: 09/02/14 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

that Mr. Haimoff was unable to attend his deposition scheduled for 

July 31, 2014, because he was unexpectedly and unavoidably delayed in 

Israel while visiting his ill and elderly mother. Motion for 

Protective Order, pp. 1-2. Mr. Haimoff specifically avers that his 

mother is confined to a wheelchair and needs assistance seeking 

shelter during missile attacks against Israel. Affidavit, ECF 57-1, 

¶¶ 2-7 (“Haimoff Affidavit”). He also avers that no other family 

member is available to assist his mother and that, in light of her 

condition, she cannot remain alone with a stranger. Id. at ¶¶ 8-10. 

Because he represents that he cannot now leave his mother to return to 

the United States for a deposition, id. at ¶ 10, UHA “proposes that a 

final extension through September 15 be granted.” Motion for 

Protective Order, p. 3. 

 Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion for Protective Order, but 

asks that the Court not further extend the case schedule to 

accommodate UHA’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff’s Response, pp. 

1-2. Plaintiff also asks that, should the Motion for Protective Order

be granted, the Court order an immediate in-person deposition of Mr. 

Haimoff should he offer substantive testimony by way of affidavit or 

declaration in connection with any subsequent motion or brief filed by 

UHA. Id. at 2. There has been no reply in support of the Motion for 

Protective Order.

 Plaintiff’s argument is well-taken. The Court recognizes the 

difficulty and present unavailability of Mr. Haimoff. Accordingly, 

Defendant UHA’s Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(c) 

With Respect to the Deposition of Uziel Haimoff, Presently Noticed for 

Case: 2:11-cv-00487-NMK Doc #: 65 Filed: 09/02/14 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

July 31, 2014, ECF 55, is GRANTED with one condition. If UHA offers 

Mr. Haimoff’s testimony by affidavit or declaration in connection with 

substantive issues in this case, he is ORDERED to appear for an 

immediate in-person deposition. 

September 2, 2014 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00487-NMK Doc #: 65 Filed: 09/02/14 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>