Filed: Oct. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM ROGER W. TITUS , District Judge . On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 286]. The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response by October 19, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., which they did [ECF No. 287]. Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response [EFC No. 289] later that day. Having reviewed the filings, including the entire transcript of the deposition of Steven L. Arnold [ECF No. 286, Ex. A and ECF No. 287, Ex. A], the Court concludes
Summary: MEMORANDUM ROGER W. TITUS , District Judge . On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 286]. The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response by October 19, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., which they did [ECF No. 287]. Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response [EFC No. 289] later that day. Having reviewed the filings, including the entire transcript of the deposition of Steven L. Arnold [ECF No. 286, Ex. A and ECF No. 287, Ex. A], the Court concludes ..
More
MEMORANDUM
ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.
On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 286]. The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response by October 19, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., which they did [ECF No. 287]. Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response [EFC No. 289] later that day.
Having reviewed the filings, including the entire transcript of the deposition of Steven L. Arnold [ECF No. 286, Ex. A and ECF No. 287, Ex. A], the Court concludes that no emergency exists. Defendants are not in need of any protection, as Plaintiffs' questions were well within the scope of allowable discovery. Moreover, the Court is concerned about the legitimacy of a number of the objections made by the defense during the deposition. Defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 286] is therefore DENIED.
The Court will not at this time revisit the orders governing the ongoing discovery concerning the Balad issue but will, at the hearing on December 4, 2015, entertain argument concerning the sufficiency of discovery on the Balad issue without access to electronically stored information.
Despite the informal nature of this ruling, it shall constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.
