Defendant Richard Joseph Probst’s Motion to Compel James Duffy to Answer Questions at Deposition is granted as to the questions in Sections 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2(a) of defendant’s Separate Statement, and is denied as to the questions in Sections 2(b) and 3(a). The questions for which this motion is being granted seek information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, and the questions for which this motion is being denied do not seek information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action. In addition, the questions in Section 2(b) seek to invade the witness’ right to financial privacy without good cause having been shown.
Both sides’ requests for monetary sanctions are denied. Plaintiff and defendant both acted with substantial justification, at least in part. In addition, defendant overburdened the court by not highlighting the subject questions in his Separate Statement, but rather lumping them in with a lot of attorney colloquy. The questions for which defe