Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

Joseph A. Kendhammer, SBN 009156 Jeanne E. Varner Powell, SBN 017535 Kendhammer & Colburn, L.L.P. 394 North Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85003 (602) 340-9900 Attorneys for Defendants Mesa General Hospital Medical Center, L.P.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8

Wyvonna M. Barnett
9

Plaintiff,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

vs. Mesa General Hospital Defendant.

) ) ) Case No. CV032566 PHX ROS ) ) ) RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ) DEFENDANTS'COUNCIL [SP] TO ) SUMMONS AND/OR SUPOEONA [SP] ) ALL EXPERT WITNESSES TO APPEAR ) IN COURT AND WHERE APPLICABLE ) SHOW CAUSE WHY THESE EXPERT ) WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE HELD ) LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF )

This Court should deny Plaintiff' Motion to Compel. There is no legal basis for s the relief requested. Rather, the Motion is based entirely on Plaintiff' erroneous understanding s of the discovery process and the term " deposition." MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES In her Motion to Compel, it appears that Plaintiff is asking this Court to compel this Defendant to " submit depositions"of its witnesses. Plaintiff also asks this Court to grant a separate motion setting a trial date. With regard to the latter request, Mesa Ge neral respectfully refers this Court to its concurrently filed Response to Plaintiff' Motion to Set Trial. s

-1-

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 94

Filed 10/11/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5

With regard to Plaintiff' Motion to Compel depositions, it is obvious that s Plaintiff continues to misunderstand the word " deposition." Plaintiff has already filed her own " deposition"and numerous motions in which this misunderstanding is apparent. She apparently believes that a deposition is similar to a disclosure statement in that a party summarizes the evidence they will present in written form. Perhaps because of this misunderstanding, Plaintiff

6

has refused to cooperate with Defendants in allowing her own oral deposition to be noticed
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

before a Court reporter with all parties present. Similarly, she has never noticed depositions of any of this defendant' witnesses. s Because Rule 30 governs depositions, Plaintiff' Motion to Compel must be s denied. Defendants do not prepare and file the depositions of their witnesses. Rather, Plaintiff, is charged with noticing the depositions of the witnesses she wants to depose, scheduling a court reporter and, if the witness is an expert, paying the fees charged by that individual for deposition time. Plaintiff has never communicated with counsel undersigned to request any potential dates for any witness depositions. She has never even specified which witnesses she wants to depose. Therefore, her motion must be denied.

DATED this ____ day of October, 2005.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KENDHAMMER & COLBURN, L.L.P.

/s_________________________________ Joseph A. Kendhammer Jeanne E. Varner Powell Attorneys for Defendant Mesa General Hospital, L.P. dba Mesa General Hospital Medical Center

-2-

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 94

Filed 10/11/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ORIGINAL and one copy delivered this ____ day of October, 2005 to: Clerk of Court Honorable Roslyn O. Silver Copy of the foregoing mailed this ___ day of October, 2005, to: Wyvonna M. Barnett 506 East McKamey Payson, AZ 85541 Plaintiff Pro Per

_________________________

-3-

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 94

Filed 10/11/2005

Page 3 of 3