Stickelman v. Sysco Corp., 053119 NEWC, 1627

Docket Nº:1627
Case Date:May 31, 2019
Court:Nebraska
 
FREE EXCERPT
PATRICK STICKELMAN, Plaintiff,
v.           
SYSCO CORPORATION, Defendant.
No. 1627
Doc. 218
Nebraska Workers' Compensation
May 31, 2019
          Jeffrey P. Welch, Attorney at Law Marks, Clare & Richards LLC           Bill M. Lamson III, Attorney at Law Evans & Dixon LLC           Abigail A. Wenninghoff, Attorney at Law Larson, Kuper & Wenninghoff, P.C.,LLO. ORDER           Thomas E. Stine, Judge.           This matter came on for hearing on May 22, 2019, on two motions, defendant’s (Amended) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Response, Attendance at Deposition and Independent Medical Examination and Motion to Continue, and plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. Defendant offered Exhibits 1 through 8 in support of its motion and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff had no objections. Exhibits 1 through 8 were received for purposes of the two motions.           Defendant’s (Amended) Motion to Compel contained several motions within the pleading. First, defendant asks that plaintiff be compelled to respond to written discovery requests. This motion was withdrawn by defendant at the time of hearing. Next, defendant requests a continuance of the trial date because more time is needed to complete discovery. Plaintiff did not resist this motion. The Court finds that good cause has been shown for a continuance and that trial of this matter shall be continued to a date in the future no sooner than November12, 2019. The Pretrial Order is also continued to a later date. This matter shall be returned to the clerk of court for scheduling in accordance with this order.           Defendant next asks the Court to compel plaintiff to attend a deposition in either Lincoln or Omaha instead of North Platte. The nexus of this dispute is that defendant claims that because venue of this matter is Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska, that plaintiff should be compelled to attend a deposition in Lincoln. Defendant alternatively suggests that plaintiff should be compelled to attend a deposition in Omaha because all of the attorneys reside in Omaha. Plaintiff argues that he should not be compelled to attend a deposition in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP