UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

THE ESTATE OF DAVID L. IMEL and )

SHARON IMEL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15CV69

)

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before me is Defendant’s Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order and

the supplement thereto (DE’s 33-34, 38-39). For the following reasons, the motion will

be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. the Motion to Quash will be GRANTED and the

Motion for Protective Order will be DENIED as moot in light of my finding, discussed

below, that fact discovery in this matter is closed. 

On April 14, 2016, I held a status hearing after discovery in this matter had

closed. (DE 31.) During that hearing, counsel for both parties informed me that two

expert depositions – a treating physician, Dr. Nussbaum, and a nurse practitioner, Ms.

Selking – remained outstanding. (DE 33-1 at 7-8.) As I indicated to the parties, I was

surprised to learn of these depositions considering that the purpose of this status

hearing was to set the dispositive briefing schedule and trial date once discovery was

closed, and since the discovery deadline had come and gone with no request from
counsel to extend it to either the magistrate judge or me, I thought it was closed. (DE

33-1 at 5.) Since the parties represented to me that only these two depositions remained,

I told them, “Ordinarily, I would just kick this matter back to the magistrate and have

her re-issue a brightline order, but I’m gonna dispense with that. What I’m gonna tell

you is have these remaining two depositions done by the end of June.” (DE 33-1 at 8-9.)

In the meantime, Plaintiff has issued two deposition notices to a fact witness at

the defendant insurance company. She is not an expert witness and was not one of the

remaining depositions disclosed to me. Plaintiff has not sought to reopen discovery. 

Defendant seeks to quash the notice on the basis that fact discovery – and, indeed, any

discovery beyond the two depositions identified at the April 14 hearing – is closed and

in any event, the notice failed to comply with the 14-day notice requirement in our local

rules, among other defects. (See L.R. 30-1.) Plaintiff admits its first notice didn’t comply

with our local rules and states it has corrected the errors in the second notice. (DE 40.) 

But this misses the first point: discovery in this matter, with the exception of the

Nussbaum and Selking depositions is closed. Plaintiff points to what it contends is an

order I issued on April 14 saying that the “Court orders that the depositions must be

completed by the end of June 2016.” (DE 40 citing DE 31) What Plaintiff is actually

quoting isn’t an order at all, but is rather a docket entry summarizing what I ordered

orally during the hearing. And my oral order was clear: discovery was closed other

than the two remaining depositions identified to me by the parties. 

2
In any event, lest there be any further confusion, let me be explicit: all discovery

in this matter is CLOSED except the Nussbaum and Selking depositions which must be

completed by June 30, 2016. The Motion to Quash is therefore GRANTED and the

Motion for Protective Order will be DENIED simply because it is unnecessary in light

of the fact that discovery is closed and therefore no further deposition notices other than

for Nussbaum and Selking should be forthcoming. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 8, 2016

s/Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

3