Filed: Sep. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GREGORY B. WORMUTH , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum ( doc. 102 ) and Motion for Protective Order ( doc. 105 ) and the attendant briefing ( docs. 103, 106, 108, & 110 ). Having considered the parties' briefing and held a hearing on the motions, the Court will deny the motions as moot, but will not grant Defendants the expenses they
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GREGORY B. WORMUTH , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum ( doc. 102 ) and Motion for Protective Order ( doc. 105 ) and the attendant briefing ( docs. 103, 106, 108, & 110 ). Having considered the parties' briefing and held a hearing on the motions, the Court will deny the motions as moot, but will not grant Defendants the expenses they i..
More
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
GREGORY B. WORMUTH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum (doc. 102) and Motion for Protective Order (doc. 105) and the attendant briefing (docs. 103, 106, 108, & 110). Having considered the parties' briefing and held a hearing on the motions, the Court will deny the motions as moot, but will not grant Defendants the expenses they incurred in responding to the motions.
The arguments in Plaintiff's motions were, in large part, predicated on his incorrect understanding that discovery would occur separately in both cases and that discovery in the lead case was still stayed.1 See generally docs. 102, 105. Notwithstanding these and the other objections raised in his motions, Plaintiff attended his deposition at the prescribed time and place and provided some but not all of the requested documents. Doc. 118 at 2. At a hearing held on the matter, Defendants' counsel informed the Court that they were no longer seeking the documents or items requested but not produced by Plaintiff and further asserted that Plaintiff's motions are now moot. Id. Given that the deposition took place, that some of the items requested were produced, and that the other items requested are no longer sought, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motions as moot. Finally, because Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, misunderstood the effect of consolidation and was unsure about the status of one the dispositive motions in the lead case, the Court finds that his filing of the motions was substantially justified such that costs should not be awarded to Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum (doc. 102) and Motion for Protective Order (doc. 105) are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even though Defendants prevailed on both motions, they are not entitled to expenses incurred in responding to them.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
