Finke v. Trustees of Purdue University et al
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER re 39 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Linda Finke. The Motion is GRANTED in accordance with the terms set forth in this Opinion and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 11/7/13. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
LINDA FINKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRUSTEES OF PURDUE
UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:12-CV-124
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court in this sex and age discrimination case is a Motion for Protective Order
(Docket # 39) filed by Plaintiff Linda Finke pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c),
concerning the deposition of Defendant Chancellor Michael Wartell scheduled for November 12,
2013. Specifically, Finke requests that the Court limit and define the involvement of the
attorneys who will attend the deposition and the scope of allowable questioning.
As background, Defendant Wartell is currently a plaintiff in another matter involving Title
VII gender discrimination against Purdue University pending in this Court, Wartell v. Purdue
University, No. 1:13-cv-99 (N.D. Ind. filed Apr. 1, 2013), as well as a case pending in Allen
Superior Court, Wartell v. Lee, No. 02D01-1306-PL-232. Defendants in this case have advised
Finke that the lawyers representing Wartell in his two other cases will attend his upcoming
deposition. Although Finke does not object to their attendance, she anticipates that such counsel
may attempt to advise Wartell not to answer certain questions about his other lawsuits, which she
contends may be relevant to her case. Accordingly, she seeks a protective order limiting the
involvement of Wartell’s other attorneys at the deposition.
Finke’s motion for protective order is GRANTED in that Wartell’s counsel in other cases
may attend the deposition solely as observers. They may not raise objections, coach (verbally or
nonverbally), or question the deponent.
As a reminder, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) prescribes the proper form of
objections during depositions:
An objection at the time of the examination . . . must be noted on the record, but
the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. . . .
A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve
a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion
under Rule 30(d)(3).
See Medline Indus. v. Lizzo, No. 08 C 5867, 2009 WL 3242299, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2009)
(concluding that counsel’s instructing the deponent not to answer based on relevancy grounds was
improper, explaining that Rule 30 provides three grounds for instructing a deponent not to answer
and relevance is not among them).
And, of course, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The scope of relevancy
under Rule 26 is broad. ‘Relevant information need to not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’”
Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, 291 F.R.D. 251, 257 (E.D. Wis. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1)).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Docket # 39) is GRANTED in
2
accordance with the terms set forth herein.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 7th day of November, 2013.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?