Issuing or filing party: Minnesota District Court, Seventh Judicial District
Case number: 56-CV-25-198
Document date: November 17, 2025
Document type: Order concerning a minor child's deposition
Length: 2 pages

About this document

This order is part of the public record in Precision Locating, LLC v. Starkebaum, Otter Tail County Court File No. 56-CV-25-198. It governs additional fact discovery involving a minor witness.

Why this document matters

The order is one part of the expanded discovery record the plaintiffs later cited in seeking permission to add punitive damages.

Scope note: This page summarizes a public court record for access and discovery. Consult the original PDF for authoritative wording, citations, signatures, exhibits, and formatting.

Read the extracted text transcript

Accessible document transcript

[Page 1]
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

Precision Locating, LLC and Arvig
Enterprises, Inc.,

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA FOR
DEPOSITION OF A MINOR
CHILD E.S.

vs.

Martin D. Starkebaum,

Defendant. Court File No. 56-CV-25-198
______________________________________________________________________________

The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable Kevin M. Miller, Judge of District
Court, on October 2, 2025, for a motion hearing at the Otter Tail County Courthouse in Fergus
Falls, Minnesota. Kurt Erickson, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Precision Locating, LLC
and Arvig Enterprises, Inc. V. John Ella, Esq., and Jerry Burg, Esq., appeared on behalf of
Defendant Martin Starkebaum.
Based on the motion filed, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court
makes the following:
Findings of Fact
1. On September 11, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoena for the
deposition of a minor child E.S.
2. In his answer to the July 25, 2025, amended verified complaint, Defendant asserted the
affirmative defense that Plaintiffs’ claims of defamation and defamation per se are barred
because the statements are the truth or substantially the truth.

[Page 2]
2

3. Defendant has not withdrawn his affirmative defendant that the statements are the truth or
substantially the truth.
Conclusions of Law
1. “The trial court has considerable discretion in granting or denying discovery requests.”
Erickson v. MacArthur, 414 N.W.2d 406, 407 (Minn. 1087) (citations omitted).
2. The Court will deny the motion to quash the subpoena for deposition of the minor child
E.S., as Defendant has not withdrawn the affirmative defense of truth or substantial truth. If
Defendant withdrew the affirmative defense of truth or substantial truth, the Court would
consider E.S.’s testimony unnecessary.
3. The deposition of E.S. will be limited to two hours. After the basic biographical
information is obtained from E.S., the questions will be limited to the accusations against
Matthew Guthmiller and any conversation E.S. may have had with Defendant regarding the
accusations.
Order
1. Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena for the deposition of the minor child E.S. is
denied.
2. The deposition of the minor child E.S. shall be limited to two hours. After the basic
biographical information is obtained from E.S., the questions shall be limited to the accusations
against Matthew Guthmiller and any conversation E.S. may have had with Defendant regarding
the accusations.
Dated:________________ By the Court:
___________________________
Kevin M. Miller
Judge of District Court