*1 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 52] and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition Responses.[1] [Doc. 58] The Court will address each of these motions in turn, but first sets forth a brief summary of matters at issue in this case.

This lawsuit is an action for defamation and interference with business relationships. The Plaintiffs allege that in October, 2018, the Defendant wrote an article (“the Article”) about the Plaintiffs and submitted the Article to the Knoxville Daily Sun. The Article was published. The Plaintiffs allege that certain specific statements made by Defendant in the Article were false and defaming to the Plaintiffs. [Doc. 1]. The Defendant generally denies that any statement made by him in the Article is false, but that, in fact all of his statements are “absolutely true.” [Doc. 7].

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 52]

The first motion under consideration is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 52] which seeks a protective order as to Defendant's Interrogatories to Plaintiff Apex Bank, dated June 26, 2020. Defendant has filed a response in opposition [Doc. 11]. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply, and the time for doing so has passed. The motion is ripe for consideration.

Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiffs do not appear to have satisfied the meet and confer requirements of Rule 26(c) before filing the instant motion. Rule 26(c) does not provide that failure to meet and confer automatically results in denial of the motion. Given the prior dispute in this matter over a substantially similar discovery request, the Court will excuse the failure in this specific instance and address the merits of the motion. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel are ADMONISHED that such failures in the future could result in the denial of motions which do not comply with the Rules, or other appropriate sanctions.

The discovery request at issue consists of one interrogatory with eight sub-parts and seeks information for the period ranging from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019. [Doc. 52-1] In comparison, Defendant issued a substantially similar request on April 18, 2019, which consisted of two interrogatories, the first of which had fifteen sub-parts, and sought information for the period ranging from January 1, 2008, through April 18, 2019. [Doc. 52-2] The Court notes that the 2020 request is substantially similar to the 2019 request. The major differences are that the the 2020 request excludes the 2019 request's second interrogatory. In addition, in the 2020 request, the temporal scope of the request is reduced from approximately eleven years to five years, and also eliminates some sub-parts which appeared in the 2019 request.

*2 The similarity between the two requests is significant because Plaintiffs previously sought, and were granted, a protective order for the 2019 request. [Docs. 9, 19] In addressing the 2019 interrogatories, the Court found “that the [2019] interrogatories are not relevant to this defamation and tortious interference with business case. And further, even if the [2019] interrogatories were relevant, they would be grossly overbroad and disproportional to the needs of this case under Rule 26.” [Doc. 19] After comparing the 2020 and the 2019 interrogatories, the Court's decision has not changed. The information sought in the 2020 discovery request is substantially the same as that sought in 2019, and the Court still finds that Defendant's interrogatories are not relevant to this defamation and tortious interference with business case. And while Defendant has narrowed the temporal scope of the 2020 interrogatories, and has eliminated some of the interrogatories’ sub-parts, the Court finds that the request remains overbroad and disproportional to the needs of this case under Rule 26. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion [Doc. 53], is well-taken and it is GRANTED.

II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition Responses [Doc. 58]

The second motion under consideration is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition Responses [Doc. 58] which seeks to compel Defendant to respond to questions which he refused to answer at his July 27, 2020 deposition. Defendant has filed a response in opposition [Doc. 61], and Plaintiffs have filed a reply. [Doc. 68] The motion is ripe for consideration.

After reviewing the deposition transcript excerpts [Doc.58-1], it is clear that Defendant, who is proceeding pro se, refused to answer a number of questions. Defendant offered the following reasons for his refusal: that the questions were not relevant to the instant litigation; and that the questions instead related to litigation pending in South Carolina, and that Defendant would answer such questions only in a deposition in the South Carolina litigation, when Defendant was represented by his South Carolina counsel.

In his response, Defendant again asserts that the questions he refused to answer were not relevant. [Doc. 61] Defendant raises other issues, such as unsupported allegations that Plaintiffs are using the instant suit to drain Defendant's finances, and statements concerning the alleged duplicity of a company belonging to one of the Plaintiffs. However, given the absence of any evidence to support Defendant's claim that Plaintiffs are acting in bad faith, the Court finds that none of these other issues provide a legal basis for refusing to respond to a question during a deposition, leaving only the relevance objection.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs depositions by oral examination. In a deposition taken pursuant to Rule 30, the party conducting the examination may inquire into any nonprivileged topic, where there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 30 permits a deponent to object during a deposition, but then he must nevertheless answer the question posed and “the testimony is taken subject to any objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (emphasis added).

Rule 30 provides only three grounds whereby a person may refuse to answer at a deposition: (1) “to preserve privilege,” (2) “to enforce a limitation ordered by the court,” or (3) “to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). This rule applies equally to pro se litigants. Goode v. Mercy Mem. Hosp., No. 11-10037, 2014 WL 7369926, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2014). However, it is well settled that “[l]ack of relevance is not a valid objection under [the federal rules] and, as a result, is not an appropriate reason to withhold answers to a question posed during a deposition.” Id. (quoting Ferrell v. Sparkman, No. 4:06-cv-7, 2007 WL 172516, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2007)). Furthermore, Rule 26(b)(1) makes clear that, “[i]nformation within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Defendant's opportunity to object to the admission of evidence at trial is preserved by his objection, even if he still must answer the question in his deposition. Accordingly, while Defendant is entitled, if he so chooses, to state on the record during his deposition his objection as to the lack of relevance, he must still respond to the questions posed. There is simply no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Defendant to decline to answer questions related to a topic he subjectively deems irrelevant.

*3 With respect to Defendant's argument that he would not answer questions related to the South Carolina litigation because the attorney who represents him in that case was not present, that is not a legally valid objection. Defendant elected to proceed pro se in this case. Defendant's status as a pro se litigant does not absolve him from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion [Doc. 58] to be well taken, and the same is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs may notice another deposition for Defendant, to occur on or before October 16, 2020. Defendant shall attend the continuation of his deposition, and shall provide truthful and complete answers to all questions asked unless the refusal to answer is permissible upon the very limited grounds discussed above, and each ground upon which he relies is stated on the record, concisely and in a nonargumentative manner. The questions Defendant must answer include, but are not limited to, those he failed to answer at the initial session of his deposition on July 27, 2020, questions regarding the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, and questions seeking similar information. Defendant is ADMONISHED that failure to comply with this Order could result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER: