EER Systems Corp. v. Armfield, Harrison & Thomas, Inc.
Fairfax County Circuit Court
1Opinion of the Court
By Judge Jane Marum Roush
This case is before the court on the Defendants’ Motion to Compel and on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. The Court has fully considered the matter, including the parties’ pleadings and their points and authorities. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion to Compel is granted, and the Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order is denied.
The fact that AH&T’s and Tri-City’s Motion to Dismiss remains under advisement does not affect the scope of discovery. Thus, AH&T is permitted to continue the deposition of Mr. Shaughnessy and shall do so…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Belcher v. KirkwoodSupreme Court of Virginia · 1989
- Federated Graphics Companies, Inc. v. NapotnikDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1976
- Powell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1986
- General Insurance of Roanoke, Inc. v. PageSupreme Court of Virginia · 1995
- Harris v. K & K Insurance Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hall v. Virginia International Terminals, Inc.Norfolk County Circuit Court · 2011
- Skibinski v. LungerArlington County Circuit Court · 2008