Issuing or filing party: Minnesota District Court, Seventh Judicial District
Case number: 56-CV-25-198
Document date: October 17, 2025
Document type: Order permitting a reopened deposition
Length: 3 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 addresses additional deposition discovery requested after the original examination.

Why this document matters

The ruling allowed further fact development rather than closing discovery. That procedural choice later became relevant to the plaintiffs' request 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
COMPEL DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY

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 July 25, 2025, for a motion hearing at the Otter Tail County Courthouse in Fergus
Falls, Minnesota. Kurt Erickson, Esq., and Grace Jacobson, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs
Precision Locating, LLC and Arvig Enterprises, Inc. 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 July 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel deposition testimony. Plaintiffs
requested that Defendant be ordered to reappear for his deposition and Plaintiffs be allowed to
question him for up to seven more hours; Defendant pay Plaintiffs’ costs and fees incurred in
bringing the motion; and Defendant pay the costs and fees associated with his May 2, 2025, and
the reopened deposition on a date to be determined.
2. Defendant provided testimony at a deposition on May 2, 2025. Plaintiffs ended

[Page 2]
2

Defendant’s deposition with two hours 13 minutes remaining due to Defendant’s evasive
responses. The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct during the deposition was intentional and
made in effort to frustrate the deposition questioning.
Conclusions of Law
1. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 30.04(b), Plaintiffs will be granted
additional time for Defendant’s deposition.
2. A videotaped recording of a deposition is not required. Therefore, that is not a reasonable
cost to require Defendant to pay under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 30.04(c).
3. The issue of the costs and fees associated with the May 2, 2025, deposition of Defendant
and the reopened deposition on a date to be determined will be reserved. Additional information
is needed to determine whether sanctions, including reasonable costs and attorney’s fees,
pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 30.04(c) are appropriate.
Order
1. Defendant shall reappear for his deposition for up to seven more hours.
2. Plaintiffs’ motion that Defendant pay the videographer fees for the time he reappears for
his deposition is denied.
3. The issue regarding costs and fees for the May 2, 2025, deposition and the reopened
deposition at a date to be determined is hereby reserved. Following the completion of the
reopened deposition, Plaintiffs shall submit an affidavit detailing the financial requests to allow
the Court to determine reasonableness.
4. The issue of costs and fees Plaintiffs incurred in bringing the motion to compel
deposition testimony is hereby reserved. Following the completion of the reopened deposition,

[Page 3]
3

Plaintiffs shall submit an affidavit detailing the financial requests to allow the Court to determine
reasonableness.
Dated:________________ By the Court: