Velasco v. Broadway Artic Circle LLC et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Compel. The discovery deadline is extended to Friday, December 2, 2011 only for the purpose of co nducting the deposition of David Bell. The parties shall meet and confer to determine a time to conduct the deposition during the week of November 28, 2011.Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MARIO VELASCO,
Case No. 4:11-cv-00102-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
BROADWAY ARCTIC CIRCLE, LLC;
and HITT ARCTIC CIRCLE, LLC,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 11), and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Owner to Appear at Deposition (Dkt. 15).
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the stipulated litigation plan and the Court’s Case Management Order,
this case was set on an expedited track. The court entered its CMO on August 5, 2011
and set fairly tight deadlines, including a December 16, 2011 dispositive motion deadline
and a November 11, 2011 discovery cutoff deadline.
On October 19, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendants’ counsel to inquire

M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 1

about a date for taking the deposition of David Bell, the owner of the defendant
restaurants. The parties were unable to agree on a time, and, on October 25, 2011,
Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the deposition for November 2, 2011. Defendants’ counsel
indicated that he could not attend the deposition until after November 27, 2011 because of
a previously scheduled trial. Defendants then filed the pending Motion for Protective
Order and the Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel Defendants’ Owner to Appear
at Deposition.
The discovery rules regarding protective orders and motions to compel depositions
are well known. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may issue a
protective order upon good cause shown. Under Rule 37(d), the Court may order
sanctions where a party fails to attend a noticed deposition.
In this case, Defendants suggest that Plaintiff did not give timely notice to conduct
the deposition before the discovery cutoff date. Plaintiff argues that given the expedited
schedule for the case in general, Plaintiff gave Defendants ample time.
The Court finds that the best way to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of this action as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 is to require
the parties to agree on a time to conduct the deposition during the week of November 28,
2011, after Defendants’ counsel concludes his other trial. The Court commends the
parties attempt to set tight discovery deadlines in this case, but finds that a short extension
of that deadline is warranted to allow for the deposition. Accordingly, the Court also
finds that monetary sanctions are not warranted.
M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 11) is DENIED in part
band GRANTED in part. The deponent is not required to attend the
noticed deposition, but counsel shall meet and confer as explained below.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Owner to Appear at Deposition
(Dkt. 15) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The discovery
deadline is extended to Friday, December 2, 2011 only for the purpose of
conducting the deposition of David Bell. The parties shall meet and confer
to determine a time to conduct the deposition during the week of November
28, 2011. Monetary sanctions are not awarded.

DATED: November 8, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 3