Filed: Apr. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE HENDRICKS RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge. This Matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash and for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 303] (the "Motion"). The Court has considered the Motion, Defendant Thomas Rudd's Opposition to the Motion, Plaintiffs' reply, if any, and the declarations submitted in support of these respective filings. Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to prohibit the deposition of Drew H
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE HENDRICKS RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge. This Matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash and for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 303] (the "Motion"). The Court has considered the Motion, Defendant Thomas Rudd's Opposition to the Motion, Plaintiffs' reply, if any, and the declarations submitted in support of these respective filings. Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to prohibit the deposition of Drew He..
More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE HENDRICKS
RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge.
This Matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash and for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 303] (the "Motion"). The Court has considered the Motion, Defendant Thomas Rudd's Opposition to the Motion, Plaintiffs' reply, if any, and the declarations submitted in support of these respective filings.
Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to prohibit the deposition of Drew Hendricks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Heightened scrutiny to take Mr. Hendricks's deposition does not apply, as Rudd "seeks to depose [Hendricks] as an `actor' or `viewer' with non-privileged information . . ." See Hedden v. City of Seattle, No. C05-999-TSZ, PACER Dkt. No. 179 (May 30, 2006). Alternately, even if heightened scrutiny did apply to a deposition of Mr. Hendricks pursuant to Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986), Rudd has made the requisite showing that (1) no other means exist to obtain the information than to depose Hendricks; (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.
Rudd has represented that he seeks to depose Hendricks for the purpose of (i) evaluating potential testimony by Hendricks in this case, and (ii) overcoming any objections to certain documents based on foundation and authenticity. Consequently, if plaintiffs wish not to produce Mr. Hendricks for a deposition, they may do so provided that:
1. Plaintiffs will not call Mr. Hendricks as a witness in the case (either in their direct case or as a rebuttal witness), and they will not submit a declaration of Mr. Hendricks in support of summary judgment; and
2. Plaintiffs will not challenge-on the basis of lack of foundation, lack of personal knowledge, or lack of authentication-any of Mr. Hendricks' statements
Alternately, Plaintiffs may reserve their right to call Mr. Hendricks as a witness and/or preserve their objections on the grounds above, but must produce Mr. Hendricks for a deposition on a date agreeable to all counsel on or before May 5, 2014.
