Scrap King LLC v. Stericycle, Inc.
Scrap King LLC v. Stericycle, Inc.
2019 WL 13256809 (M.D. Fla. 2019)
May 14, 2019
Porcelli, Anthony e., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied the Motion for Protective Order, noting that protective orders precluding depositions are rarely granted and that extraordinary circumstances must be present in order for such an order to be issued.
Additional Decisions
SCRAP KING LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
STERICYCLE, INC., Defendant
v.
STERICYCLE, INC., Defendant
Case No. 8:18-cv-733-T-35AEP
United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Signed May 14, 2019
Counsel
Jamie Alexandra Kilpatrick, Stuart Jay Levine, Walters Levine Klingensmith & Thomison, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.Ashley Bruce Trehan, Joshua Samuel Michael Smith, Lauren Virginia Humphries, Richard George Salazar, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.
Porcelli, Anthony e., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 57) and Defendant's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 59). By the motion, Plaintiff seeks a protective order preventing it from producing a corporate representative for deposition while document production issues remain unresolved. In response, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for issuance of a protective order.
Under Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including but not limited to forbidding the disclosure or discovery, specifying terms for the disclosure or discovery, and prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A)-(C). The burden of demonstrating good cause for preclusion of a deposition is a heavy one, which is why the granting of protective orders precluding depositions rarely occurs. Dunford v. Rolly Marine Serv. Co., 233 F.R.D. 635, 637 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citations omitted); see also Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-1033-Orl-41TBS, 2016 WL 9526313, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2016) (“Courts look with disfavor on motions to prevent the taking of depositions.”). Indeed, “ ‘[i]t is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether and absent extraordinary circumstances, such an order would likely be in error.’ ” S.E.C. v. Kramer, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979)[1]).
As Defendant articulates in its response, Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for issuance of a protective order precluding the deposition of its corporate representative. Namely, Plaintiff's request to withhold its corporate representative from deposition pending resolution of outstanding discovery disputes on the part of Defendant does not establish good cause or any basis for a finding that Plaintiff needs protection from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Accordingly, no protective order will issue, and it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 57) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 14th day of May, 2019.