White River Village, LLP v. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical

Full title: WHITE RIVER VILLAGE, LLP, and WHITE RIVER TOWNHOMES, L.L.C., Plaintiffs…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jan 23, 2009

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00248-REB-BNB, (Consolidated with (08-cv-00359-REB-BNB) (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00248-REB-BNB, (Consolidated with (08-cv-00359-REB-BNB).

January 23, 2009

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter arises on White River's Motion for Court Order Continuing Subpoenas [Doc. # 194, filed 12/4/2008] (the "Motion"). I held a hearing on the Motion this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.¹

1 At the hearing this morning, I stated that I would also continue the subpoena served on Brian Labbe. That part of my oral ruling was in error and is VACATED. It appears that Mr. Labbe's subpoena was issued out of a court in a different district, and any order continuing it must be made by the issuing court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(2)(B).

Initially, I note that I make no decision concerning the plaintiff's right to notice or take the depositions of Messrs. Kojin, Duncan, and Labbe. This issue is not currently before me and should be raised, well in advance of any deposition, ² by means of a motion to enlarge discovery limits; to quash the subpoenas; for protective order; or for other appropriate relief. In addition, during the hearing a question arose about whether a party which has exhausted its permitted number of depositions may question a witness whose deposition is noticed by another party. It was my intention in setting the numerical limits to allow questioning of a deponent by any party, regardless of whether that party could have noticed the deposition, so long as the questioning does not cause the deposition to exceed the time limit allowed.

2 Each of the depositions is scheduled for a date more than four months in the future.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and the deposition subpoenas served on Dennis Kojin and Alan Duncan by the plaintiff are continued to the following dates:

Dennis Kojin: June 22, 2009; and

Alan Duncan: June 23, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve this order on the deponents in a reliable manner reasonably calculated to lead to its receipt by the deponents including, for example, by United States mail, first class postage prepaid. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b).