Benzing v. Tully Construction Co, Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:21-cv-05315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Benzing v. Tully Construction, Judge Lehrburger denied as moot a request for more deposition time and a particular deposition order because of another order.
Structural Services, Inc., the plaintiffs, and the defendants or third-party plaintiffs involved in the deposition dispute.
What happened
In Martin J. Benzing, et al. v. Tully Construction Co., et al., Structural Services, Inc. asked the court for additional time to question Martin Benzing and for a specific order governing the parties’ depositions. The request concerned an alleged construction-site accident and claimed injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.
Structural Services sought about four additional hours for Martin Benzing’s deposition. It also asked the court to require the plaintiffs and certain defendants or third-party plaintiffs to complete their depositions before Structural Services’s corporate witness was deposed.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the request as moot in light of an order entered at Docket 68. The opinion text does not describe that other order’s contents.
The detailed version
- Benzing v. Tully Construction Co, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05315
- Robert Lehrburger
- July 11, 2023
Background
Structural Services, Inc., a third-party defendant, submitted a letter asking the court to resolve a dispute about depositions. Martin Benzing’s deposition had begun on June 28, 2023. According to Structural Services, questioning about liability and Benzing’s claimed injuries had not been completed. The letter stated that the parties had previously agreed to conduct Benzing’s deposition over two days and that counsel later could not agree on additional questioning time.
Requests
Structural Services asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) to extend its questioning of Martin Benzing by approximately four hours: about one and a half hours concerning his purpose at the job site and about two and a half hours concerning his claimed traumatic brain injury and inability to work. Structural Services also asked the court to require the plaintiffs and the defendants or third-party plaintiffs identified in the letter to complete their depositions before Structural Services’s corporate witness was deposed, following an order of witnesses that the parties had previously agreed upon.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the request as moot in light of the order at Docket 68. The text provided does not state what Docket 68 ordered. The court therefore did not make a merits ruling on the parties’ underlying personal-injury or construction-related claims in this document.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.