Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
WILHOLD v. GEBKE
October 5, 2005.
DAVID WILHOLD, Plaintiff,
KRIS GEBKE, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ROBERT HERTZ, Sheriff of Madison County, Illinois, SERGEANT HILL, individually and as an employee of the Madison County Sheriff's Department, and OFFICER YOUNG, individually and as an employee of the Madison County Sheriff's Department, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration
of the Court's August 3, 2005, order quashing the notices of the
depositions of Dr. Kevin Garner, Dr. Peter Anderson, Sergeant
Rich Martin, Denise Nunn, Sergeant Pete Moore, Jason Gilbert,
Randy Eaton, Lieutenant Shocky, and Dr. Syed Ali. (Doc. 24).
The deposition notices were quashed because defendants correctly
objected that they were tendered after the close of discovery.
(See Doc. 23).
Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is based in great part
upon the false notion that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
distinguish between "discovery" depositions and "evidence"
depositions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 does not
distinguish or characterize a deposition according to the
examining party's aim.
Plaintiff's counsel asserts that in his 35 years practicing in
federal court he has never been required to take a treating
physician's deposition before the discovery deadline in order for
it to be used at trial. This Court does not doubt that assertion; this may
just be the first time opposing counsel has objected and forced
the issue. Local Rule 26.1(d) does mandate cooperative discovery
arrangements, but defendants are clearly within their rights to
ask that the pretrial schedule and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure control. Similarly, plaintiff's counsel has apparently
relied upon opposing counsel's good will in agreeing to have
treating physicians' depositions used at trial, regardless of
whether the physician is truly unavailable for purposes of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3).
U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan assigns a specific trial
date, not a floating presumptive trial month. Therefore, it is
imperative that the parties complete discovery and be ready for
trial as scheduled. Again, Local Rule 26.1(d) gives the parties
leeway to agree to extend the discovery deadline without Court
approval, but absent such an agreement (memorialized in writing
if the parties desire to have the Court enforce it), the schedule
dictated by the Court controls.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For