Andalam v. The Trizetto Group

Filing 73

MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Defendant Trizetto's Motion to Quash Notice and Subpoenas and for Entry of a Protective Order. The subpoenas are quashed and a protective order is entered preventing any further depositions by Plaintiff except by further Order of Court. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/12/2013.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01679-WYD-MJW
VIJAYKRISHNA ANDALAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, a Delaware corporation doing business as a foreign
corporation in Colorado,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Trizetto’s Motion to Quash Notice and
Subpoenas and for Entry of a Protective Order (docket no. 55) is GRANTED. The
subpoenas are quashed and a protective order is entered preventing any further
depositions by Plaintiff except by further Order of Court.
The Rule 16 Scheduling Order (docket no. 19) that was entered in this case limits
the number of depositions to four per side. At the Scheduling Conference, the parties
had a fair and adequate opportunity to discuss with this court the number of depositions
needed in this case. After much discussion, this court limited the number of depositions
to four per side. See record at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on September
13, 2012. Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed any timely motion to amend the Scheduling
Order (docket no. 19) to allow for additional depositions and has failed to demonstrate
good cause to amend the Scheduling Order. The court decides any limitations on
discovery and not the parties. A district court may issue a protective order under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c) to quash a noticed deposition “to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Here, Plaintiff
has already taken over four depositions and any attempt to schedule additional
depositions without court approval is not permitted. Accordingly, the subject motion
(docket no. 55) should be granted.
Date: September 12, 2013