Free Order on Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

A \ g se 3;03—cv—01 OBUIVCA Document 46 Filed 11/@@04 I ,, , _ ,
I ¤ I I
I U} _ · 5..;:] _·
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT _
I H DISTRICT OF comwecriczltliwliwl ·a A lU= l _
(U I , ,> _ , ._ , .I ..II
g DOLORES FONSECA, ET AL : DIV.NO..if§:03L1@}JtlAiQ55I§ 5
O I o I. I
U Pialmirr ;
A
`§ JASON ALTERIO, ET AL :
§ » I Defendants : November 3, 2004
I °’ `
E DEFENDANT, JASON ALTERIO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
g OBJECTION TO VIDEO DEPOSITIQN OF RALPH FONSECA GOING FORWARD
O
gl The Defendant, Jason Alterio hereby objects to and request the court issue a
C'.
ga protective order preventing the Plaintiffs from conducting thevideo tape deposition of
(I) I .
E Ralph Fonseca on November 3 at 6:00 p.m. Counsel for Defendant Alterio was
T3 6 faxed the notice of deposition dated November 2, 2004 at 1 :01 p.m. and did not
'U J M
Bw * U; become aware of it until approximately 1:45 p.m. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30
mc •
0 5 D .
LS C Z L (b) (1) states that a party desiring to take the deposition of any person shall give
C'. a O I
Z; I4. I E reasonable notice in writing to every other person to the action. Twenty-nine hours
‘° < I > N iii:
'gj __ 8 gigéles nbt constitute reasonable notice within the meaning of the rule. Furthermore, it
,_, , II~ Qjgi
§ g Il» igcotgn-seI’s understanding that the deposition may be used in lieu of trial testimoggy in
<¤ I 44 ..I.: "“ ir `
· i %';**:” making It GVSTI mOl`€ important that counsel BCJSQUBTSIY pI'€p8I`€ for the A
fg g§Iepo,sition. The timing of the notice of deposition does not give counsel adequate ‘
45 Q - time to prepare.
LI M
G) HJ —
.Q Q
E M
GJ O I
i>
O O I _
Z U1
CANToR, FLoMAN, Gkoss, SAcRAMoNE & DAL! RC. - Jums No. 43415
TELEPHONE rzoamsqzn I . 1£$