Objectant's motion for a protective order was not frivolous. While the attorney for the 92-year-old objectant can be faulted for twice canceling the deposition within a four-month period, and for offering only an unsworn letter from objectant's physician in support of the motion for a protective order that was made on the day the deposition was to be held, the motion for a protective order clearly was not completely without merit in fact or undertaken primarily to delay,...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.