Trombetta v. Novocin
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Judge Cave ordered Patrick Michael O’Leary’s deposition and required defendants to respond about reopening fact discovery.
Annamarie Trombetta, Patrick Michael O’Leary, and the defendants were affected by the court’s deposition and discovery-related directives.
What happened
In Trombetta v. Novocin, pro se plaintiff Annamarie Trombetta sent the court two letters dated February 23, 2023. The letters included a request to reopen fact discovery and issues concerning Patrick Michael O’Leary’s deposition.
The court ordered O’Leary to appear for a deposition by February 28, 2023, and ruled that he was not entitled to receive his deposition fee in advance. The court said any disagreement about whether his fee was reasonable could be brought to the court after the deposition. It also ordered the defendants to respond by February 27, 2023, to Trombetta’s request to reopen fact discovery.
Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on February 24, 2023. The clerk was directed to mail a copy to Trombetta.
The detailed version
- Trombetta v. Novocin · No. 1:18-cv-00993
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 24, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Annamarie Trombetta sent the court letters dated February 23, 2023. The order addresses her request to reopen fact discovery and the deposition of Patrick Michael O’Leary.
Court’s Orders
The court ordered Patrick Michael O’Leary to appear for a deposition by Tuesday, February 28, 2023. It ruled that O’Leary was not entitled to advance payment of his deposition fee. The court explained that parties seeking the court’s help in deciding whether an expert-deposition fee is reasonable should do so after the deposition, not before it. If the parties could not agree on the fee, they could seek court intervention after the deposition.
The court also ordered the defendants to file a response by Monday, February 27, 2023, to Trombetta’s request to reopen fact discovery. The clerk was directed to mail Trombetta a copy of the order.
Disposition and Classification
This was a discovery-related procedural order. It required a deposition and a response to the request to reopen fact discovery; it did not decide the underlying merits of the lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.