PATRICK STICKELMAN, Plaintiff,
SYSCO CORPORATION, Defendant.
Nebraska Workers' Compensation
May 31, 2019
Jeffrey P. Welch, Attorney at Law Marks, Clare & Richards
M. Lamson III, Attorney at Law Evans & Dixon LLC
Abigail A. Wenninghoff, Attorney at Law Larson, Kuper &
E. Stine, Judge.
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 This motion was withdrawn by defendant at the time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
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...