Legal Opinion
Egervary v. Young
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 22, 2001No. CIV. A. 96-3039PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
O’NEILL, District Judge.
The federal defendants’ motion for a protective order requests that I decide whether the scheduled deposition of a third-party witness should go forward after newly-named federal defendants have claimed qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
I
This case derives from an international child custody dispute. 1 In February 1993, Ms. Aniko Kovacs, plaintiffs wife, took their son Oscar to Hungary, ostensibly to perform in a concert. Plaintiff alleges that sometime thereafter his wife informed him that she was ending their…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Siegert v. GilleySupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Crawford-El v. BrittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Egervary v. YoungDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001