Filed: Jul. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Protective Order filed by defendant Burnett in David v. Signal (08-1220)(the " David case"). 1 Plaintiffs in the David case oppose Burnett's motion. 2 Defendant Signal International, LLC ("Signal") also opposes Burnett's motion. 3 The EEOC, plaintiff in EEOC v. Signal (12-557)(the " EEOC case"), filed a response to Burnett's motion. 4 Plaintiffs in the David case noticed Malvern C. Burnett's ("Mr.
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Protective Order filed by defendant Burnett in David v. Signal (08-1220)(the " David case"). 1 Plaintiffs in the David case oppose Burnett's motion. 2 Defendant Signal International, LLC ("Signal") also opposes Burnett's motion. 3 The EEOC, plaintiff in EEOC v. Signal (12-557)(the " EEOC case"), filed a response to Burnett's motion. 4 Plaintiffs in the David case noticed Malvern C. Burnett's ("Mr. ..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Protective Order filed by defendant Burnett in David v. Signal (08-1220)(the "David case").1 Plaintiffs in the David case oppose Burnett's motion.2 Defendant Signal International, LLC ("Signal") also opposes Burnett's motion.3 The EEOC, plaintiff in EEOC v. Signal (12-557)(the "EEOC case"), filed a response to Burnett's motion.4
Plaintiffs in the David case noticed Malvern C. Burnett's ("Mr. Burnett") deposition for three days: July 28, 29, and 30, 2014. Signal noticed Mr. Burnett's deposition for July 28 and 29, 2014. Burnett moves for a protective order precluding the David Plaintiffs and Signal from deposing Mr. Burnett. Alternatively, Burnett asks the Court to limit his deposition temporally and to prevent the David Plaintiffs and Signal from questioning Mr. Burnett on matters already covered in previous depositions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) requires a movant show good cause why justice requires an order to protect a party or person from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" before issuing a protective order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
The Court finds good cause to limit the deposition of Mr. Burnett. He has already been extensively deposed during the class certification phase of the David case and the Court is hard pressed to find sufficient justification for allowing the parties to re-depose Mr. Burnett without any limitations. As such, the Court finds it appropriate to limit Mr. Burnett's deposition in the following manner.
The deposition of Mr. Burnett, in his individual and Rule 30(b)(6) capacities, shall last a maximum of two (2) days. Counsel for the parties in the David case, the EEOC case, and Achari v. Signal (13-6218, 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 147-732)(the "Achari cases") shall participate in Mr. Burnett's deposition and share time questioning him. Mr. Burnett has been deposed in the class certification phase and counsel are admonished not to repeat questions answered then.
As previously ordered with respect to the David Plaintiffs' depositions, Mr. Burnett's deposition is to begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:30 p.m. with a fifteen (15) break in the morning, two fifteen (15) minute breaks in the afternoon, and an hour lunch break.5
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Burnett's Motion for Protective Order be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above.
