Opinion
Case No. 09-C-1157.
October 6, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff has moved for an order to enforce subpoenas and to compel discovery against two witnesses, both of whom are lawyers. In his affidavit, counsel for Plaintiff details a lengthy, frustrating and ultimately unsuccessful effort to communicate with the respondents about taking their depositions. These allegations have not been disputed. In fact, the respondents do not oppose the motion to compel on substantive grounds; they merely ask that their depositions be taken in Madison, where they work, rather than in the Milwaukee area, where most of the other counsel are located.
It is true that one of the respondents will now be appearing a second time for a deposition and that matters outside his control were the cause of that unfortunate fact. It is also true that professional courtesy tends to be accommodative of the busy schedules of professionals. But the allegations here suggest that the time for such courtesies has lapsed. Accordingly, I will not order the depositions to be held in Madison.
The motion to compel is GRANTED. The depositions will be held at the offices of Greg Gunta, as proposed by the Plaintiff, at a mutually convenient time.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2011.