Legal Opinion
Barton Business Park Associates v. Alexander (In Re Barton Business Park Associates)
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California
Decided September 10, 1990No. 19-10291PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
CHRISTOPHER M. KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge:
This is a joint motion by the plaintiff and by the third-party defendant to compel the defendant/third-party plaintiff to answer questions that he refused to answer during his deposition because his counsel objected that the questions were irrelevant and instructed him not to answer. No privilege was asserted and no motion to terminate or limit the examination was made. The motion to compel will be granted. Expenses, including attorney’s fees, will be awarded against the counsel who…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Marquis v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Ralston Purina Company v. William A. McFarlandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1977
- Shapiro v. FreemanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1981
- United States v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. Gurrola (In Re Gurrola)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Franceschi v. State Bar (In Re Franceschi)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- In Re ValdezUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2006
- Polo Building Group, Inc. v. Rakita (In Re Shubov)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Polo Building Group, Inc. v. Rakita (In Re Shubov)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.