Legal Opinion
Kerschbaumer v. Bell
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 6, 1986No. Civ. A. No. 86-2090PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order barring non-deposed parties from attending depositions of other parties. The Court has considered the motion, defendants’ opposition thereto, the record in this case, and the underlying law, and in consequence denies plaintiffs’ motion.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(5) allows the Court to order that “discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court.” This Rule, and the Court’s discretion under it, should be invoked sparingly, else the openness on which our legal system…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ronald E. Galella v. Jacqueline Onassis, John Walsh, and United States of America, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- United States v. OsidachDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Skidmore v. Northwest Engineering Co.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1981
- Metal Foil Products Manufacturing Co. v. Reynolds Metals Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1970
- Beacon v. R. M. Jones Apartment RentalsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Alexander v. Federal Bureau of InvestigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Tolbert-Smith v. BodmanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
- Ledden v. KuzmaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- Bell v. Board of EducationDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2004
- Smith v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.