Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc.

156 F.R.D. 659, 94 Daily Journal DAR 12156, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11898, 1994 WL 460493
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJuly 25, 1994
DocketNo. CIV S-93-1557-LKK-PAN
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 F.R.D. 659 (Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc., 156 F.R.D. 659, 94 Daily Journal DAR 12156, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11898, 1994 WL 460493 (E.D. Cal. 1994).

Opinion

ORDER

NOWINSKI, United States Magistrate Judge.

On June 23, 1994, plaintiffs served amended deposition notices scheduling defendants’ depositions on July 6 and 7 in Redding, where plaintiffs and their counsel reside. Defendants seek an order changing the location of their depositions from Redding to Sacramento, where defendants reside and work. Plaintiffs resist. The dispute was scheduled for hearing on July 13, 1994, but was submitted for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(h).

Defendants contend that it is unreasonable to impose upon them the financial burden of traveling 164 miles to Redding and incurring expenses for meals and lodging there. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that she previously rescheduled the depositions at defendants’ request and that they did not complain about the location when they sought a time more convenient to them; that she would be required to transport boxes of documents to Sacramento and would be without access to clerical and computer support in Sacramento and, thus, that a more severe burden would befall plaintiffs and their counsel if defendants’ request were granted; and that plaintiffs’ depositions previously were taken in Sacramento for the convenience of defendants and their counsel without objection by plaintiffs.

[660]*660Same monks, same haircuts.1 Defendants’ motion for a protective order is denied.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh
101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 F.R.D. 659, 94 Daily Journal DAR 12156, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11898, 1994 WL 460493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-checkrite-california-inc-caed-1994.