Legal Opinion

Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 11, 1995No. Civ. A. No. 94-CV-7506PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

JOYNER, District Judge.

Today we resolve yet another discovery dispute in this litigation; this one a Motion of Plaintiff, Maia Caplan, for a Protective Order to keep her from “having to undergo additional days of deposition in this case, after defendants concluded their deposition of her on the fourth day having asked all of the questions they then had.” Motion at 1. Ms. Caplan is represented by William H. Ewing. Defendants, David Braverman and the law firm of Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey, contest this Motion, arguing that Ms. Caplan’s deposition had not been completed at…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Smith v. Logansport Community School Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1991
  2. Perry v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1987
  3. Tramm v. Porter Memorial HospitalDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1989
  4. Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Deines v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kleppinger v. Texas Department of TransportationDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API