Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dantecristo who wrote (1005)	2/26/2001 5:39:46 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

An Orrick attorney representing Varian is now asking the judge to support their fascist efforts in Orrick's "[Proposed] Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion by Plaintiff, J. Tracy O'Rourke, and Richard Aurelio (1) to Stay the Taking of their Depositions, (2) to Quash the Notice of Deposition or for a Protective Order, and (3) for Monetary Sanctions" Here's what Matthew H. Poppe is proposing Judge Cabrinha sign: "...The Court, having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties and having heard the argument of counsel, hereby ORDERS as follows:... (3) The motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART as follows: The deposition of Mr. Zdasiuk shall be limited to new allegations in Plaintiffs' Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint and shall not exceed seven hours. In addition, before the deposition takes place, Plaintiffs may file an additional motion for protective order showing cause why a further protective order should be entered to exclude the defendants from the deposition room, seal the deposition transcript, or provide other appropriate relief." Since when is it legal to exclude a defendant in a lawsuit from the deposition of one of the Plaintiffs?