Legal Opinion

Piercy v. Goldleaf Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 14, 1986No. 82-1122C; CA A30911Published

1Opinion of the CourtWarden, J.

Defendant McMahan (defendant) appeals from an order refusing to set aside a judgment by default entered against him as a sanction for his failure to appear for a deposition pursuant to an order to compel discovery. ORCP 64B. We reverse and remand.

The affidavit of plaintiffs attorney and the circuit court record1 show that, on July 6,1983, following six weeks of trying to arrange for defendant’s deposition, plaintiffs attorney gave notice to take the deposition on July 21. On July 15, defendant’s attorney moved for a protective order on the ground that defendant was out of the state.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hahm v. HillsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  2. Mestas v. PetersOregon Supreme Court · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API