Arnold
Arnold v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MARIE ENCAR ARNOLD, Case No. 24-cv-07122-EKL (VKD)
9 Plaintiff,
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
10 v. PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT
11 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 36 12 Defendant.
13 14 Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Metropolitan”) asks the Court to issue 15 a protective order, pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, preventing 16 plaintiff Marie Arnold from taking depositions of Metropolitan and its employees, at least until the 17 pleadings in this action are settled. Dkt. Nos. 36, 39. Ms. Arnold’s position is unclear. Referring 18 specifically to her notice of deposition addressed to Metropolitan’s employee, Kevin Lonergan, 19 Ms. Arnold states: “Prematurely, obtaining discovery does not prejudice the preparations. 20 Plaintiff Marie Encar Arnold has agreed to wait for the CMC meeting in person with Federal 21 Honorable…