Chambers v. Troy-Bilt LLC
Chambers v. Troy-Bilt LLC
2015 WL 13934749 (N.D. Tex. 2015)
June 23, 2015
Lindsay, Sam A., United States District Judge
Summary
The court did not make any specific rulings regarding ESI, as the motion for protective order did not involve any ESI.
TERRY CHAMBERS, Plaintiff,
v.
TROY-BILT LLC, et al., Defendants
v.
TROY-BILT LLC, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-569-L
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Filed June 23, 2015
Counsel
Stephen W. Shoultz, Law Office of Stephen W. Shoultz, Dallas, TX, Matthew J. Kita, Dallas, TX, Russell Titus Button, The Button Law Firm, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.D. Randall Montgomery, Alyssa Marie Barreneche, D. Randall Montgomery & Associates PLLC, Dallas, TX, Peter A. Holdsworth, Pro Hac Vice, Richard T. Coyne, Pro Hac Vice, Wegman Hessler & Vanderburg, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant Troy-Bilt LLC
Lindsay, Sam A., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the court is Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33), filed March 18, 2015; Plaintiff's Motion to Defer Defendant Lowe's Home Centers LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40), filed April 22, 2015; Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's Motion for Protective Order from Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 51), filed May 21, 2015, which was referred to the magistrate judge for determination; and Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Defer Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56), filed June 1, 2015.
On June 18, 2015, the court granted the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines, including deadlines for discovery and dispositive motion, and entered its First Amended Scheduling Order, which reset the trial of this case to April 2016. In light of this order and the parties' agreement to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines and to avoid piecemeal litigation, the court denies without prejudice Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33). The court's decision to deny without prejudice Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe's”) summary judgment motion moots the parties' motions regarding Plaintiff's request to defer resolution of the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Defer Defendant Lowe's Home Centers LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40); and denies as moot Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Defer Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56).
With respect to the motion for protective order, Lowe's contends that the discovery sought by Plaintiff, pursuant to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition notice and subpoena duces tecum, is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative of its written responses to Plaintiff's prior discovery requests; the burden and expense of such discovery outweighs any potential benefit; and its summary judgment motion can be decided based on the evidence submitted by Lowes, without the discovery sought by Plaintiff. The court determines that Lowe's has not met its burden of establishing the necessity of the requested protective order.* The court, therefore, vacates the order referring this motion to the magistrate judge (Doc. 55) and denies Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's Motion for Protective Order from Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 51).
*2 It is so ordered this 23rd day of June, 2015.
Footnotes
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for a protective order. See Harris v. Amoco Prod. Co., 768 F.2d 669, 684 (5th Cir. 1985). The movant has the burden of establishing the necessity of a protective order, which requires a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l, 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The movant must show specifically how each request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable. See McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990). Additionally, any contention that the requested discovery is overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive must be shown by the through affidavits or other evidence revealing the nature of the burden. See Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 475, 477 (N.D. Tex. 2005).