Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yoder v. Ryan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 31, 2006

C. RODNEY YODER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GEORGE H. RYAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frazier, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are plaintiff's motion for a protective order and defendants' motion to compel (Doc. Nos. 50, 52).

When justice requires and for good cause shown, a protective order will be entered to protect a person subject to discovery from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Plaintiff seeks an order limiting the defense to deposition questions pertaining to the facts plead and not previously asked and answered (Doc. No. 50). The defense argues that a protective order is not appropriate. The defense does not intend to rehash matters that were covered completely in the first deposition but will not agree to limit questions as requested (Doc. No. 51).

The Court is not persuaded that there is good cause for a protective order. The materials submitted do not demonstrate that defense counsel intends to ask questions for the sole purpose of annoying, embarrassing, or oppressing plaintiff or that there is some other sound basis for a protective order. Rather, it appears that defense counsel is attempting to gather information needed to prepare a defense to the claims asserted against his clients. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED.

Defendants' motion to compel is based on plaintiff's refusal to respond to deposition questions regarding his finances and his receipt of government benefits. This motion is unopposed.

On grounds of irrelevance, plaintiff objected to questions regarding his financial situation and then refused to respond to the questions. While irrelevance is grounds for objection; it is not a reason to withhold an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c). Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 52) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that, within 21 days, plaintiff shall submit to a supplemental deposition and answer all questions submitted to him regarding government benefits and his financial condition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PHILIP M. FRAZIER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20060331

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.