What’s titled a response in opposition reads like a motion in proposition of a solution – and reinforces my opinion that underneath all of the allegations there is a very simple truth relevant to the various cases, this one McIntosh.
Renfroe has previously deposed the Rigsbys in this matter, by consent and order, outside of the discovery period. Now, after ten months have passed, Renfroe seeks to reopen the Rigsbys’ depositions without any limitations on scope or content. For the reasons set forth below, the Rigsbys respectfully request that the Court apply to Renfroe the same limitations that the Court has already provided for State Farm regarding the upcoming September 3, 2008 depositions of the Rigsbys. (emphasis mine)…
…Despite Renfroe’s unreasonable position, however, the Rigsbys do not object to Renfroe deposing them on September 3, subject to the same limitations imposed on State Farm. Indeed, because this Court has already held that those deposition topics are timely for State Farm due to the circumstances, the Rigsbys presume that the same would be true for Renfroe.
Having previously stated my opinion of the Refroe emergency, the emphasis added is simply my way of pointing out I feel Rigsbys proposed resolution is particularly respectful of the McIntosh family.
I’ve included the background in the motion with citations deleted to make it more readable. IMO the background supports the Rigsbys position; but, read and decide for yourself. Continue reading “Rigsbys file response to Renfroe emergency motion to compel deposition”