Milo v. Galante

Filing 80

ORDER granting in limited part 78 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. SEE ATTACHED ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 8/3/2011. (Watson, M.)

ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT IN MILO V. GALANTE, 09 CV 1389 (JBA) ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, FILED 6/30/11 (Dkt. #78)
8/3/11 – Under the Scheduling Order issued by U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton on
1/7/11 (Dkt. #72), all discovery is to be completed by 8/13/11, and after a pre-filing
conference, all dispositive motions are to be filed by 9/30/11.
In his Motion for Protective Order, filed 6/30/11 (Dkt. #78), defendant objects to
videotaping his deposition at FCI Allenwood Low, which will show defendant in “prison
garb,” and in a “custodial setting,” which will be prejudicial to him at trial, particularly
since “he intends, to the extent permitted by both the Bureau of Prisons and the United
States Marshal’s Service, to appear at the trial in person, both to assist counsel and to
testify.” (Dkt. #78, at 1, n.1, 2-3 & Exh. A).
In her brief in opposition, plaintiff asserts that her “sole purpose” in videotaping
defendant’s deposition is “for presenting his testimony to the jury should [defendant] not
be present at trial[,]” and “[t]o that end, [plaintiff] would agree to place the videotape of
the deposition under a protective order specifying that the tape could only be used at trial
and for no other purpose.” (Dkt. #79, at 1, 5-7). As plaintiff further points out, the
Bureau of Prisons lists defendant’s release date as January 2015, substantially later than
the trial here, defendant is located beyond the subpoena power of this court, there is no
guarantee that defendant will be present at trial, and defendant is “an essential witness in
this case.” (Id. at 3-5).
Accordingly, defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #78) is granted in limited part
so that the videotape may be used only at trial and for no other purpose, without
prejudice to Judge Arterton reaching any other conclusion prior to or during trial with
respect to its admissibility, and is denied in all other respects.
If any counsel believes that a continued settlement conference before this Magistrate
Judge would be productive (see Dkts. ##47, 63, 69), he or she should contact this
Magistrate Judge’s Chambers accordingly.

1