Opinion
3:20-cv-00152 SLG
02-02-2023
In the Matter of the COMPLAINT of William and Jane Martz, as owners of the Nautique, for Limitation of Liability
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITIONS
SHARON L. GLEASON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court at Docket 97 is Mr. Horazdovsky's Motion to Stay Depositions and at Docket 102 is Limitation Plaintiffs' William and Jane Martz (the “Martzes”) response. The facts of this case have been laid out in other filings, and the Court assumes familiarity here. The current issue is whether depositions, currently set to begin tomorrow, February 3, 2023, should be stayed.
The Court previously denied Mr. Horazdovsky's request that the case be delayed until after the conclusion of Reagan Martz's criminal trial. Any motion to reconsider the Court's Scheduling and Planning Order dated August 8, 2022 is untimely. Additionally, the Court agrees with the Martzes' analysis of the six Keating factors as laid out in their opposition brief. While respectful of Attorney Meztger's health issues, Mr. Horazdovsky has not met his burden of showing why the extraordinary remedy of a stay should be granted. The Court acknowledges the likely unavailability of Attorney Meztger at the scheduled depositions. However, the Court is confident that Attorney Dan Pace, who has managed the bulk of the motions in the case, including all communications with the Court and counsel associated with the depositions, can capably represent Mr. Horazdovsky's interests at the depositions. Therefore, the depositions shall proceed as scheduled.
Docket 64.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 59(e) and 60(b). [3] Docket 102 at 6. See Keating v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). [4] See Keating v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion at Docket 97 is DENIED.
ORDERED.