OR  

Trade us a transcript with expert
testimony for this transcript

                                                                     1
               IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                 OF MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO
     
     EDITH DELLICK,
                Plaintiff,
          vs.                               Case No.
     EATON CORPORATION,                     02CV1285
     et al.,
                Defendants.
     
     
                        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                 Videotape deposition of ALVIN J.
     SCHONFELD, D.O., called for examination under
     the statute, taken before me, Denise M.
     Munguia, a Registered Merit Reporter and Notary
     Public in and for the State of Ohio, pursuant
     to notice and stipulations of counsel, at the
     offices of Kelley & Ferraro, LLP, 1901 Penton
     Media Building, 1300 East Ninth Street,
     Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday, October 13, 2003,
     
     at 1:02 o'clock p.m.
     
                        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                                                                     2
 1   APPEARANCES:
 2   
 3        On behalf of the Plaintiff:
 4              Kelley & Ferraro, LLP, by
 5               LORI ANN LUKA, ESQ.
 6              1901 East Ninth Street
 7              1300 East Ninth Street
 8              Cleveland, Ohio  44114
 9              (216) 575-0777
10   
11        On behalf of the Defendant Eaton
12        Corporation:
13              Critchfield, Critchfield &
14              Johnston, Ltd., by
15              BARBARA KNAPIC, ESQ.
16              10 South Gay Street
17              Mount Vernon, Ohio  43050-3546
18              (740) 397-4040
19                         ----
20   
21   ALSO PRESENT:
22              Scott Johnson, Esq.
23               Joe Ockuly
24               Steve Soltz, CLVS
25                         ----

                                                                     3
 1               MS. LUKA:  There is a stipulation
 2   between plaintiff's counsel and defense counsel
 3   to splice the credentialing from the prior case
 4   of Victoria Murar versus Republic Rubber into
 5   this case so that the doctor doesn't have to
 6   testify about his credentials again.  Do you
 7   agree, counsel?
 8               MS. KNAPIC:  I do agree.  I
 9   wouldn't put the doctor through that long
10   testimony again.
11               MS. LUKA:  Thank you.
12               THE WITNESS:  You're the best.
13               MS. LUKA:  Okay.
14               MS. KN