Legal Opinion

Lumpkin v. Bi-Lo, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided October 13, 1987No. Civ. A. No. 87-28-ATHPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

FITZPATRICK, District Judge.

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order filed pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff asks the court to limit the number of witnesses Defendant can have present at the deposition of Plaintiff by finding that Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which applies to the sequestration of witnesses at trial, also applies to oral depositions.

The facts giving rise to the filing of this Motion are as follows. Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for May 19, 1987. Counsel for Defendant arrived at the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Naismith v. Professional Golfers Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1979
  2. BCI Communication Systems, Inc. v. Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1986
  3. Skidmore v. Northwest Engineering Co.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1981
  4. Williams v. Electronic Control Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1975

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. District Court of the First Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
  2. Adams v. Shell Oil Co.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1991
  3. Lee v. Denver Sheriff's DepartmentDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1998
  4. Pryor Automotive Supply Inc. v. Estate of EdwardsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1991
  5. Smith v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API