IN THE S T A T E COURT OF D E K A L B COUNTY
STATE O F GEORGIA
PATRICK DESMOND AND MARY
DESMOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND
MARY C. DESMOND, AS
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF PATRICK DESMOND,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 10-A-28641
v.
NARCONON OF GEORGIA, I N C ,
DELGADO DEVELOPMENT, I N C ,
SOVEREIGN PLACE, LLC,
SOVEREIGN PLACE APARTMENT
MANAGEMENT, INC, LISA
CAROLINA ROBBINS, M . D , THE
ROBBINS GROUP, INC, AND
NARCONON INTERNATIONAL,
Defendants.
B R I E F IN SUPPORT OF DELGADO D E V E L O P M E N T . INC.'S
MOTION FOR P R O T E C T I V E O R D E R
Comes Now, Defendant Delgado Development, Inc., pursuant to O.C.G. A. §9-1137, and files this Brief in Support of its Motion for Protective Order and shows this Court
as follows:
Statement of Facts
DOWNEY & C L E V E L A N D . LLP
Attorneys at Law
288 Washington Avenue
The Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of nonparties, Maria Delgado and her ex-
Marietta, Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
husband Don Delgado, for October 24,2011. The Plaintiffs' Notices state the depositions
will be "for discovery and all other purposes allowable under the Georgia Civil Practice
Act." (Plaintiffs' Notices to Take Videotape Deposition of Maria Delgado and Don
Delgado). The Delgados do not object to being deposed; however, they should only
have to be deposed once.
;|
In the present suit, which was filed in May of 2010, the Plaintiffs seek to recover
for the death of their 28 year-old son who died as result of a drug overdose. (Plaintiffs'
Complaint at para, at 33). Before his death, the Plaintiffs' son underwent treatment for
!'
drug abuse. He relapsed and he was again undergoing drug rehabilitation in June of2008.
11 (Id. at paras. 27-28). While undergoing treatment, the decedent left the apartment where
:
he was living on June 10, 2008. (Id. at 31). After leaving the apartment, he obtained
11 heroin. The Plaintiffs' son overdosed on heroin while he was riding in a car on 1-285 on
!i
j
l
11 June 11, 2008. (Id. at 33). The Plaintiffs allege that Delgado Development had failed to
j;
jj keep the premises safe where the decedent was living during his drug rehabilitation. (Id.
j
at 48 through 51).
!
i!
!|
Defendant Delgado Development, Inc. was a Georgia corporation. However, it was
dissolved in September of2009. (Attached as Exhibit " A " is a true and correct copy of the
|
|
|
Georgia Secretary of State's "Business Name History"). Maria Delgado is listed as an I
|j
|
ij
officer of Delgado Development, Inc. This corporation has no employees and is no longer
j
;|
in business. The only corporate representatives would likely be Maria or Don Delgado.
;
I
;
j
In connection with the scheduling of the Delgados' depositions, counsel for
!
'
I
|
Delgado Development asked Plaintiffs' counsel i f the Plaintiffs would depose the j
Delgados regarding any personal knowledge they might have as well as in a representative
capacity of Delgado Development, Inc., pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b)(6), at the same
time. The Plaintiffs flatly refused.
Specifically, after the Plaintiffs asked for dates for the Delgados' depositions,
counsel for Delgado Development wrote to the Plaintiffs' attorney on October 3,2011 and
stated: "[w]e are working on dates for the Delgados. In doing so, it occurred to me that we
have not discussed whether you want to take their depositions individually or i f you want
to depose a representative of... Delgado Development. I would assume one or the other
would be the representative, but i f you do want to depose a representative, please provide
me with the topics you would like to question the representative about so there is no issue
of whether or not we make the appropriate person available." (See attached Exhibit "B").
The Plaintiff did not respond to this e-mail. Next, on October 5, 2011, counsel for
Delgado Development again wrote to the Plaintiffs in an effort to "to work out an
arrangement so that we do the individual and 30(b)(6) depos for whoever is going to be
the representative on the same day...." (See attached Exhibit "C").
In response, to this e-mail counsel for the Plaintiffs stated only that they had not
asked for a 30(b)(6) witness. Specifically, counsel for the Plaintiffs wrote:
DOWNEY & C L E V E L A N D , LLP
Attorneys at Law
288 Washington Avenue
Marietta, Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
I have not asked for a 30(b)6 depo. All I have asked for is depo dates for the
DelGado's. In the event we decide we need a 30b6 we can cross that bridge.
Obviously you can elect to put up whoever you want as a deponent i f and
when the time comes that we make a decision for such a deposition. Based
on your email we will go ahead and schedule the depositions of the
DelGado's on the next available Monday.
-3-
(See attached Exhibit "D"). After receiving the Plaintiffs' e-mail, counsel for Delgado
Development again tried to resolve this issue and reach an agreement to have one
deposition of the Delgados.
Delgado Development asked the Plaintiffs i f they could
"resolve ... whether the Plaintiffs want to depose a 30(b)(6) representative of Delgado
Development. (I assumed they would and that the Plaintiffs would want to get all of the
Delgado depositions taken around the same time)." (See attached Exhibit "E"). A t the
same time, counsel for Delgado suggested that the Delgados' individual depositions and
any deposition in a representative capacity should be taken at the same time and proposed
as follows:
[i]f the Plaintiffs do plan to take a 30(b)(6) representatives deposition, I
propose that you let me know the topics and then we can do the Delgados'
depositions individually and in their representative capacity at the same time
or on the same day(s). As you know, Delgado Development is defunct.
The representative(s) will in all likelihood be Mr. or Ms. Delgado or both.
It seems fair and reasonable not to require them to give separate depositions
on separate dates on the exact same issues.
(Exhibit "E"). Counsel for Delgado Development also made several other proposals in
the same e-mail, including waiting to schedule the Delgados' depositions until after the
Plaintiffs determined if they would depose a corporate representative. (Id.).
Rather than discussing any proposal by Delgado Development or even making a
DOWNEY » C L E V E L A N D , LLP
counter proposal, the Plaintiffs simply refused to agree to anything. Specifically, in
Attorneys at L a w
288 Washington Avenue
Marietta, Georgia 30060
response to the above proposals, the Plaintiffs stated: "I am not agreeing to anything
(770) 422-3233
-4-
related to a 30b6 at this point...." (See attached Exhibit "F") (Emphasis added). A t the
same time, the Plaintiffs suggested that the Delgados move for a protective order. (Id.).
Arguments and Citations of Authority
The Delgados have not refused to be deposed. Rather, Delgado Development, Inc.
asks for the Court to allow the Plaintiffs to depose them only one time. The Plaintiffs, for
some unknown reason, will not agree.
The Georgia Civil Practice Act addresses deposing representatives of corporations,
such as Delgado Development, Inc. The applicable code section states as follows:
[a] party may, in his or her notice, name as the deponent a public or private
corporation or a partnership or association or a governmental agency and
designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination
is requested. The organization so named shall designate one or more
officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to
testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the
matters on which he or she will testify. The persons so designated shall
testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization
O.C.G.A. § 9-1 l-30(b)(6). In the present case, Delgado Development, Inc. has not been
asked to designate a corporate representative. It has offered to do so and requested that
the Plaintiffs designate the topics they wish to depose a representative about, but the
Plaintiffs refused.
Rather than proceeding under O.C.G.A. § 9-ll-30(b)(6), the Plaintiffs seek to
DOWNEY & C L E V E L A N D , LLP
Attorneys at Law
depose the Delgados and, it appears, the Plaintiffs will later seek to depose a corporate
268 Washington Avenue
Marietta. Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
representative. This would not be fair as the representative of Delgado Development, Inc.
-5-
j
i
i
j would likely be Don or Maria Delgado. The Plaintiffs should not be permitted to depose
the Delgados on the exact same issues twice under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30.
The common practice in Georgia is that witnesses are deposed one time. The
i
i
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly state this common practice. Fed. R. Civ. Pr.
30 generally provides that a witness may only be deposed one time. Under Rule 30, "[a]
j
party must obtain leave of court, ... [if] the deponent has already been deposed in the
|
case...." Admittedly, O.C.G.A. § 9-ll-30(b)(6), does not contain identical language;
j however, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the decisions interpreting these rules
are given "great weight" as persuasive authority in Georgia. Numerous Georgia Courts
|
have noted that:
|
the Georgia Civil Practice Act was taken from the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and with slight immaterial variations its sections are substantially
identical to corresponding rules. Because of this similarity it is proper that
we give consideration and great weight to constructions placed on the
Federal Rules by the federal courts.
Barn urn v. Coastal Health Services. Inc.. 288 Ga. App. 209,215 (2007) (citing Bicknell
!
v. CBT Factors Corp.. 171 Ga. App. 897-98) (1984). See also Global Van Lines. Inc. v.
'
Daniel Moving & Storage. Inc.. 159 Ga. App. 124 (1981).
j
Under Rule 30, taking multiple depositions of the same witness is greatly
DOWNEY S C L E V E L A N D , LLP
:l
Attorneys at L a w
j
288 Washington Avenue
!
disfavored. Requiring a non-party to appear for a duplicative deposition is contrary to the
fair and efficient administration of justice. Dickson v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685,
Marietta, Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
j
690 (D. Kan. 1996). See also Lone Star Industries. Inc. v. River's Bend Red-E-Mix. Inc..
-6-
No. 90-2349-V, unpublished opinion at 4 (D. Kan. Oct. 6, 1992); and Miller v. Federal
Express. Corp. 186 F.R.D. 376, 389 (W. D. Ten. 1999) (holding that a second deposition
is disfavored). Courts generally disfavor second depositions. 7 Moore's Federal Practice
§30.05[l][c], at 30-30 (Lexis 2006).
Further, repeat depositions are particularly
disfavored when the person sought to be re-examined is not a party to the action. See
Bonnie & Co. Fashions. Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co.. 945 F. Supp. 693, 732-33 (S.D. N.Y.
1996).
Under the above rules and cases, Delgado Development seeks only a ruling that the
Plaintiff depose Maria Delgado and Don Delgado one time for all purposes. Don Delgado
and Maria Delgado are not parties to the present suit. The above cases demonstrate that
particular care should be taken to prevent nonparties from being deposed more than one
time. Thus, the Court should rule that the Plaintiffs can depose the Delgados one time as
to all issues.
Further, the Delgados are not refusing to be deposed. Rather, they should only have
to be deposed about any knowledge they have of the facts and circumstances regarding
this case, as well as any topics for which they would be a corporate representative under
30(b)(6), on one occasion. The is no valid reason, and the Plaintiffs' have offered no valid
reason, for deposing the Delgados more than one time on the exact same issues and about
DOWNEY i C L E V E L A N D , LLP
Attorneys at L a w
286 Washington Avenue
the same facts.
Marietta, Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
Along with offer no valid reason for taking multiple depositions of the Delgados,
-7-
the Plaintiffs refused to even try to reach any agreement with Delgado Development
regarding this issue. Indeed, when the Plaintiffs were asked again about resolving this
issue and reaching an agreement, counsel for the Plaintiff flatly refused to agree to
anything and he stated: "the Plaintiffs stated: "I am not agreeing to anything related to
a30b6...."(Exhibit"F"). It was disappointing that the Plaintiffs could not articulate any
valid reason to take multiple depositions of the Delgados. It was even more disappointing
that the Plaintiffs refused to "agree to anything" regarding the Delgados' depositions.
The Plaintiffs should also not be heard to argue that the do not yet know i f they
intend to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Delgado Development. The Plaintiffs filed suit in
May of 2010. In the fifteen months that this case has been pending, the Plaintiffs certainly
determined which topics about which they wish to depose Delgado Development, Inc.
Moreover, Delgado Development also proposed that i f the Plaintiffs did not yet know i f
they wished to depose a corporate representative, that the Plaintiffs could take more time
to decide and then depose the Delgados. (Exhibit "E"). The Plaintiffs' response, as noted
above, was that they would not agree to anything.
Under the rules set forth above and in the interests of fairness to the parties and the
Delgados, Delgado Development, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
granting this Motion and rule that the Plaintiffs are permitted to depose Maria Delgado
DOWNEY 4 C L E V E L A N D , LLP
Attorneys at L a w
266 Washington Avenue
and Don Delgado one time as to all issues.
Marietta, Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
Conclusion
-8-
i
Delgado Development, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court permit the
Plaintiffs to depose Maria Delgado and Don Delgado only one time. The Plaintiffs
noticed the depositions of the Delgados for all purposes.
Counsel for Delgado
Development tried to reach an agreement with the Plaintiffs to depose the Delgados one
time regarding their individual knowledge and, i f applicable, as 30(b)(6) representatives
of Delgado Development (which is defunct). The Plaintiffs refused to even attempt to
reach an agreement. The Delgados do not oppose being deposed. However, they should
not be forced to give a deposition once only to then have the Plaintiffs notice a 30(b)(6)
deposition, which would be about the exact same issues and circumstances. As set forth
expressly in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are given "great weight" by
Georgia Courts, this Court should permit the Plaintiffs to depose the Delgados only one
time as to all issue.
WHEREFORE, Delgado Development, Inc. respectfully urges this Court to enter
an Order GRANTING its Motion for Protective Order and permitting the Pl^mtiffsjp^
depose Maria Delgado and Don Delgado once as to all issues.
Respectfully Submitted,
DOWNEY & C L E V E L A N D , L L P
DOWNEY & C L E V E L A N D , LLP
Attorneys at Law
286 Washington Avenue
Marietta, Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
SEAN L . HYNES
Georgia State Bar No. 38169fct;;
Attorneys for Defendant
tg^-
Business Entity
http://cor- «os.state.ga.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?1224456
Georgia Secretary o f State
Brian P, Kemp
Archives • Corporations • Elections • News Room • Professional Licensure • Securities • State Capitol
Search
Business Name
Control No
Officer
Registered Agent
Verify
• Verify Certification
New Filing
• Click here to file online for:
• New Limited Liability Company (LLC)
• New Business Corporation
• New Non-Profit Corporation
• New Professional Corporation (PC)
Annual Registration
• Annual Registration
Name Reservation
• File Name Reservation
Online
Online Orders
• Register for Online
Orders
• Order Certificate of Existence
• Order Certified Documents
•
•
•
•
By
By
By
By
View Filed Documents
Date: 10/14/2011 (Annual Registration History
etc.)
Business Name History
Name
DELGADO DEVELOPMENT,
Name Type
Current Name
INC.
Profit Corporation - Domestic - Information
Control No.:
0673890
Status:
Diss./Cancel/Terminat
Entity Creation Date:
8/28/2006
Dissolve Date:
9/29/2009
Jurisdiction:
GA
Principal Office Address:
2810 VALLEY BROOK DRIVE
Marietta GA 30008
Registered Agent
Agent Name:
Delaado. Maria
Office Address:
2810 VALLEY BROOK DRIVE
Marietta GA 30008
Agent County:
Cobb
Officers
Title:
CEO
Name:
MARIO DELGADO
Address:
1536 PINEBREEZE DRIVE
Marietta GA 30062
EXHIBIT
1 of 1
10/14/2011 4:30 PM
Sean Hynes
From:
Sent:
To:
Sean Hynes
Monday, October 03, 2011 11:32 AM
'Jeff Harris'
Subject:
Desmond v. Narconon, et al.
Jeff,
We are working on dates for the Delgados. In doing so, it occurred to me that we have not discussed
whether you want to take their depositions individually or i f you want to depose a representative of the
Delgado Development. I would assume one or the other would be the representative, but i f you do want
to depose a representative, please provide me with the topics you would like to question the
representative about so there is no issue of whether or not we make the appropriate person available.
Thanks and again I appreciate you working with me last week on the Taylor deposition.
Sean
Sean Hynes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sean Hynes
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:46 AM
Jeff Harris
Kate Whitlock; [email protected]
Re: Desmond v. Narconon, et
Jeff and Rebecca,
Jackson, TN may be in some odd cell service area and I can't tell which emails I sent yesterday
actually went out. Did you receive the email I sent yesterday afternoon? I sent it while Rebeccawas
looking for Taylor.
Anyway as said in that email and as Rebecca and I discussed, Mondays are generally good (except the
week of Halloween). However, I would like to work out an arrangement so that we do the individual
and 30(b)(6) depos for whoever is going to be the representative on the same day. I f you would like, I
will of course be glad to talk with you about that issue.
Thanks
Sean
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:18 AM, "Jamie Davis" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I attach a .pdf copy of the deposition notice for Mr. Parsons.
>
> Jamie Davis
> Paralegal - Atlanta
>
> Harris Penn Lowry DelCampo, LLP
> 400 Colony Square
> 1201 Peachtree St., N.E.
> Suite 900
> Atlanta, Georgia 30361
>(404) 961-7650
>Fax: (404)961-7651
>
> www.hpllegal.com
>
> Savannah Office:
> 405 East Perry Street
Sean Hynes
From:
Jeff Harris <[email protected]>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:56 AM
To:
Sean Hynes
Cc:
Kate Whitlock; [email protected]
Subject:
Re: Desmond v. Narconon, et
I didn't get any email and I'm confused. I have not asked for a 30(b)6 depo. All I have asked for is depo
dates for the DelGado's. In the event we decide we need a 30b6 we can cross that bridge. Obviously
you can elect to put up whoever you want as a deponent if and when the time comes that we make a
decision for such a deposition. Based on your email we will go ahead and schedule the depositions of
the DelGado's on the next available Monday. Thanks.
On Oct 5, 2011, at 10:46 A M , "Sean Hynes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff and Rebecca,
>
> Jackson, TN may be in some odd cell service area and I can't tell which emails I sent yesterday
actually went out. Did you receive the email I sent yesterday afternoon? I sent it while Rebeccawas
looking for Taylor.
>
> Anyway as said in that email and as Rebecca and I discussed, Mondays are generally good (except
the week of Halloween). However, I would like to work out an arrangement so that we do the
individual and 30(b)(6) depos for whoever is going to be the representative on the same day. I f you
would like, I will of course be glad to talk with you about that issue.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:18 A M , "Jamie Davis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
»
I attach a .pdf copy of the deposition notice for Mr. Parsons.
»
»
»
Jamie Davis
Paralegal - Atlanta
»
»
»
»
»
Harris Penn Lowry DelCampo, LLP
400 Colony Square
1201 Peachtree St., N.E.
Suite 900
Sean Hynes
From:
Sent:
Sean Hynes
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:39 AM
To:
Cc:
'Jeff Harris'
Kate Whitlock; [email protected]; Barbara Marschalk
([email protected]); Scott Kerew
RE: Desmond v. Narconon, et
Subject:
Jeff,
I don't know what happened with some of my e-mails from yesterday. The cell service in Jackson, T N
was spotty.
It seems the issue I would like to resolve is whether the Plaintiffs want to depose a 30(b)(6)
representative of Delgado Development. (I assumed they would and that the Plaintiffs would want to
get all of the Delgado depositions taken around the same time).
I f the Plaintiffs do plan to take a 30(b)(6) representatives deposition, I propose that you let me know
the topics and then we can do the Delgados' depositions individually and in their representative
capacity at the same time or on the same day(s). As you know, Delgado Development is defunct. The
representative(s) will in all likelihood be Mr. or Ms. Delgado or both. It seems fair and reasonable not
to require them to give separate depositions on separate dates on the exact same issues.
I f the Plaintiffs do not intend to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Delgado development, then we can
schedule the individual depositions. Again, I merely want us all to avoid having multiple depositions
on different dates of the same people on the same issues.
I f the Plaintiffs contend that they do not know yet i f they will want to depose a 30(b)(6) representative
of Delgado Development, please let me know when you think you might be able to make that decision.
I will be glad to wait for you to make that decision and then schedule the necessary depositions.
As stated in my earlier e-mail and to Rebecca yesterday, I am glad to discuss this with you further. M y
aim is to cooperate with you to get these depositions scheduled and to do so in a way that is fair to all
the parties and witnesses.
Thanks,
Sean
Original Message
From: Jeff Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:56 A M
To: Sean Hynes
Cc: Kate Whitlock; [email protected]
I
Sean Hynes
From:
Sent:
Jeff Harris <[email protected]>
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:55 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sean Hynes
Kate Whitlock; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Kerew
Re: Desmond v. Narconon, et
Sean:
I sent you a letter asking for the depositions of two fact witnesses. I asked you to provide dates when
those witnesses could be deposed. I have asked you and the DelGado's previous attorneys for these
dates repeatedly. Yet I still do not have any dates. Accordingly, the depos will be noticed today for the
17th. Please let me know whether you will accept service of subpoenas for the Delgado's.
Once again I have not asked for a 30b6 and I am not agreeing to anything related to a 30b6 at this
point. I f and when I ask for such a deposition then file a motion for protective order i f you think you
have some basis for doing so. Thanks you.
jeff
On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:38 A M , "Sean Hynes" <hynes(g),downeycleveland.com> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I don't know what happened with some of my e-mails from yesterday. The
> cell service in Jackson, TN was spotty.
>
> It seems the issue I would like to resolve is whether the Plaintiffs
> want to depose a 30(b)(6) representative of Delgado Development. (I
> assumed they would and that the Plaintiffs would want to get all of
> the Delgado depositions taken around the same time).
>
> I f the Plaintiffs do plan to take a 30(b)(6) representatives
> deposition, I propose that you let me know the topics and then we can
> do the Delgados' depositions individually and in their representative
> capacity at the same time or on the same day(s). As you know, Delgado
> Development is defunct. The representative(s) will in all likelihood
> be Mr. or Ms. Delgado or both. It seems fair and reasonable not to
> require them to give separate depositions on separate dates on the
> exact same issues.
>
> I f the Plaintiffs do not intend to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of
> Delgado development, then we can schedule the individual depositions.
> Again, I merely want us all to avoid having multiple depositions on
> different dates of the same people on the same issues.
I
Sean Hynes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sean Hynes
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 12:58 PM
'Jeff Harris'
Kate Whitlock; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Kerew;
Michelle Simmons
RE: Desmond v. Narconon, et
Jeff,
I already have a deposition scheduled for 1 p.m. on the afternoon on Monday, October 17th. I am open
on the following Monday, October 24th.
However, I do not understand the Plaintiffs' refusal to "agree[] to anything related to a 30b6 at this
point...." Again, as I told Rebecca yesterday and as I have expressed in my e-mails to you, I want to
avoid having multiple depositions of the same people on the exact same issues. I cannot understand
why the Plaintiffs would not want to streamline this process and depose the Delgados individually and
the corporate representative at them same time or on the same days.
I f the Plaintiffs continue to refuse to "agree to anything" regarding a 30(b)(6) deposition, it seems we
will simply have to ask the Court for some instruction. I remain willing to discuss this issue with you
at your convenience.
Thanks.
Sean
Original Message
From: Jeff Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:55 A M
To: Sean Hynes
Cc: Kate Whitlock; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Kerew
Subject: Re: Desmond v. Narconon, et
Sean:
I sent you a letter asking for the depositions of two fact witnesses. I asked you to provide dates when
those witnesses could be deposed. I have asked you and the DelGado's previous attorneys for these
dates repeatedly. Yet I still do not have any dates. Accordingly, the depos will be noticed today for the
17th. Please let me know whether you will accept service of subpoenas for the Delgado's.
Once again I have not asked for a 30b6 and I am not agreeing to anything related to a 30b6 at this
point. I f and when I ask for such a deposition then file a motion for protective order i f you think you
have some basis for doing so. Thanks you.
I
C E R T I F I C A T E OF S E R V I C E
This is to certify that I have this day served the following counsel o f record w i t h
a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading by depositing said copy i n the United
States Mail, with sufficient postage affixed thereon, and properly addressed to the
following:
Stevan A. Miller, Esq.
Barbara A. Marschalk, Esq.
Kathryn S. Whitlock, Esq.
Drew, Eckl & Farnham
880 West Peachtree Street
P.O. Box 7600
Atlanta, Georgia 30357-0600
Rebecca Franklin, Esq.
Franklin Law, LLC
Midtown Proscenium Center
1170 Peachtree Street
Suite 1200
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Robert C. Tanner, Esq.
Scott Kerew, Esq.
Jeffrey N. Amason, Esq.
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins,
Gunn & Dial, LLC
950 East Paces Ferry Road
Suite 3000
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
Harris, Penn & Lowry, LLP
1201 Peachtree Street, N . E.
Suite 900
Atlanta, Georgia 30361
This 14th day of October, 2011.
DOWNEY & C L E V E L A N D , L L P
SEAN L . HYNES
Ga. State Bar No. 381698
DOWNEY S C L E V E L A N D , LLP
Attorneys al Law
288 Washington Avenue
Marietta. Georgia 30060
(770) 422-3233
-10-