Herbst v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ORAL DEPOSITIONS
BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
Creating yet another pretrial wrangle in this dispute, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Sidney Silverman, treated ITT’s notices of the depositions of Marvin A. Chirelstein and Martin J. Whitman “as though they were never received.” Silverman’s position was and is that Chirelstein and Whitman are experts whom the plaintiffs expect to testify at trial and that as such the defendant may not require their depositions except by obtaining an order of this court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) (4)(A) (ii). Counsel for the defendant accordingly filed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Anne P. Kozar, Administratrix of the Estate of John P. Kozar, Deceased v. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971
- Kozar v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1970
- Breedlove v. Beech Aircraft Corp.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1972
- Wilson v. ResnickDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
- United States v. John R. Piquette Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1971
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harry E. Hoover v. The United States Department of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Hose v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1994
- Rhee v. Witco Chemical Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1989
- Quadrini v. Sikorsky Aircraft DivisionDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1977
- Benjamin v. GlozDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.