Court Opinion

ID: 9938333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:03:00.818212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:54.936985
License: Public Domain

My only reason for agreeing that the defendant did not waive its right to object by missing the 30-day deadline for responding to the first request for production is that the defendant could have reasonably inferred that the second request for production (included with the second notice of deposition) superseded the first request before the deadline for responding to the first request. The first request, served on August 21, 2002, requested that the materials be produced at the deposition, which was, by that notice, scheduled for September 23, 2002. On September 11, 2002, before the 30-day deadline for responding, and by agreement between the parties, the plaintiffs served a second notice of deposition rescheduling the deposition for October 18, 2002 and requesting production of the same materials at the newly scheduled deposition. Therefore, the defendant could have reasonably inferred that its response was due 30 days after September 11 instead of 30 days after August 21.
I concur in the main opinion insofar as it addresses the merits of the discovery dispute. *Page 1139