Cameron Mutual Insurance Company v. Johnson et al
ORDER denying 20 Motion to Quash; denying 20 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on September 20, 2016. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Civil No. 4:15-cv-04081
STEVE JOHNSON, et al
BEFORE the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Notices and Motion for
Protective Order. ECF No. 20. With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order quashing the deposition
notices of the Defendants and a Protective Order precluding any additional depositions. Id. The
Defendants have responded to this Motion. ECF No. 24. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to
the undersigned for decision. The Court having reviewed the pleadings finds Defendants’ Motion
to Quash Deposition Notices and Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 20), should be DENIED.
This lawsuit is a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment brought pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.
§§ 16-11-101, et seq, and 28 USC § 1332, in which Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court
of its contractual obligations regarding insurance contracts between Plaintiff and Defendant, Steven
Johnson. According to Plaintiff, this lawsuit will resolve a dispute as to whether Plaintiff must
provide a defense or indemnity to Steven Johnson in a suit brought by separate Defendants
Vanessa Griffin, Marcus Griffin, Brooklynn Howard, Alsandria Reid, Alphonso Reid, Angela
Ondrisek, Nichols Broderick, Matthew Broderick, Marissa Broderick, Shaina Broderick, Nathan
Griffin by and through his next friend Tonia Griffin, and Alexis Broderick by and through her next
friend Sheldon Griffin (“Underlying Plaintiffs”).
The Underlying Plaintiffs allege they were the subject of intentional physical and mental
abuse, and various forms of involuntary servitude in Griffin, et al. v. Alamo, et al., United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, 4:14-CV-04065.
(“Underlying Matter”). On August 31, 2016, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of each of the
Underlying Plaintiffs, who as stated, are also defendants in this matter. The Underlying Plaintiffs
subsequently filed this Motion to Quash and for Protection.
Counsel for the Underlying Plaintiffs argue Plaintiff has been provided with copies of each
parties deposition taken in the underlying matter, and Plaintiff has provided no reason to re-depose
each party for this matter. ECF No. 20. Additionally, they argue these depositions will be costly
and inconvenient. These arguments lack merit.
To begin with, each of these Underlying Plaintiffs are parties in this matter and subject to
discovery. Further, as pointed out by Plaintiff, although they have been provided copies of
depositions from the Underlying Matter, the testimony in those depositions does not address the
specific issues Plaintiff would like to discuss for this lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks testimony pertaining
to the factual allegations in the Underlying Matter in conjunction with Plaintiff’s policy dates, and
seeks specific information from the Underlying Plaintiffs related to the premises described on the
policy Declarations Pages. Finally, counsel for Plaintiff has stated they will work with counsel for
Underlying Plaintiffs, within reason, to aid in scheduling in order to minimize travel. ECF No.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Notices and Motion for Protective
Order (ECF No.20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this day of September 2016.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?