*1 This is a personal injury action where the plaintiff is seeking damages for injuries she sustained after suffering an allergic reaction upon eating a meal prepared by the defendant. On January 9, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to quash four deposition notices, and the accompanying subpoenas, served upon the defendant's employees [Doc. No. 32]. After an abbreviated briefing schedule, that motion is now before the court.[1]

I. Factual background

On December 5, 2019, the plaintiff's counsel made a request to depose six current and former employees of the defendant, proposing seven dates between December 9, 2019 and December 20, 2019. The following day, defense counsel responded that he would pass the proposed dates along to his client, was waiting to hear back, but that scheduling depositions before January would be difficult. On December 16, 2019, defense counsel informed the plaintiff's counsel that the executive chef working the night of the plaintiff's allergic reaction, one of the individuals the plaintiff sought to depose, was no longer with the company. He also informed the plaintiff's counsel that he was still waiting on potential dates in January for the other depositions. The following day defense counsel told the plaintiff's counsel that he had still not heard back from his client, who “is usually quick to respond,” explained he did not know the reason for the client's delay, but nonetheless asked for proposed deposition dates during the last two weeks of January 2020. The plaintiff's counsel proposed January 16, 17, and 31.

On January 6, 2020, without providing notice to the defendant, the plaintiff served deposition notices and subpoenas on four of the defendant's employees, while the individuals were working at the defendant's Stone Mountain location. Two of the depositions were noticed for the following Monday, January 13, 2020, and the other two for Thursday, January 16, 2020. The next morning, January 7, 2020, defense counsel informed the plaintiff's counsel that on January 13, 2020, he would be in California taking a previously noticed expert deposition in another matter. Defense counsel proposed that all four of the depositions take place on January 16, 2020. He also provided the plaintiff's counsel with a copy of the expert deposition notice that created this conflict, which shows it was filed nearly a month prior on December 10, 2019. The plaintiff's counsel did not respond to that offer to compromise, and instead filed the deposition notices and subpoenas at issue, prompting the defendant's motion.

II. Analysis

*2 The defendant's motion claims that depositions were improperly noticed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and that the time to comply was unreasonable under Rule 30. According to the Rule 45, “before [a subpoena] is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(4). Similarly, under Rule 30, the party noticing a deposition must provide “reasonable written notice to every other party” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(1). The defendant claims that the plaintiff, by unilaterally noticing these four depositions and demanding that the witnesses appear the following week, violated both these rules. It asks that the court quash the subpoenas, or, alternatively, order that all four depositions take place on January 16, 2020, at defense counsel's office.

The plaintiff does not dispute the defendant's timeline. Instead, she filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's motion to quash,[2] arguing that her conduct was justified. She claims that defense counsel has engaged in delay tactics with regards to scheduling the depositions, which has resulted in unreasonable delay. She classifies defense counsel's conduct as “intellectually dishonest,” “willful,” and “dishonest and deceitful with this Honorable Court,” asking that unspecified sanctions be levied against defense counsel and that she be awarded fees for having to respond to his motion to quash.

The court will not analyze the contents of the plaintiff's response line by line. The defendant's reply does a thorough job. But, after a review of the exhibits, the entire docket containing defense counsel's previously scheduled expert deposition, and the briefs, the court finds that the plaintiff's brief contains numerous misleading statements and factual inaccuracies. As such, the court agrees that the disparaging statements and characterizations of defense counsel's conduct were improper and unwarranted, and that the plaintiff's purported justifications for the improperly noticed depositions are wholly insufficient to excuse her lack of compliance with Rules 30 and 45.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court finds merit in the defendant's objections to the four deposition notices the accompanying subpoenas. The motion to quash [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED IN PART. In an effort to move these depositions forward, the court ORDERS that the two depositions already noticed for January 16, 2020, proceed as scheduled. As for the two depositions noticed for January 13, 2020 and stayed by this court's prior order, the plaintiff is ORDERED to confer with defense counsel regarding potential dates and properly notice those depositions. Additionally, the plaintiff's request for sanctions and attorney's fees is DENIED. The plaintiff shall have seven days from the entry of this order to SHOW CAUSE why this court should not award the defendant all attorney's fees as expenses incurred in responding to the opposition, as requested in the reply.

SO ORDERED this 15th day of January, 2020.

It is apparent from the exhibits attached to the briefs that the parties believe discovery closes on May 7, 2020. But that calculation is based on the filing of Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.'s answer. Under the court's local rules, “The discovery period shall commence thirty days after the appearance of the first defendant by answer to the complaint,” which occurred on July 15, 2019. LR. 26.1(B). By the court's calculation, because this case is set on an 8-month discovery track, discovery closes on April 14, 2020.

While filed as a separate motion, the court construed it as a response to the defendant's motion in order to prevent a second, parallel round of briefing on this issue.