Walker v. Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 159

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 157 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 10/19/2011. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOHN WALKER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE BOARD OF COUNTY
)
COMMISSIONERS OF SEDGWICK
)
COUNTY and COMCARE OF SEDGWICK )
COUNTY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 09-1316-MLB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (Doc. 157).
Specifically, plaintiff seeks an order restricting “defendants from inquiring in great detail
about the facts of any prior sexual activity” during his deposition. Defendants counter that
plaintiff’s deposition was taken on October 13, 2011 and defendants did not asks questions
concerning this topic; therefore, this request for relief is moot. The court agrees that this
discovery issue is moot.1
Plaintiff also seeks an order preventing defendants from videotaping certain

1

Defendants assert in a single statement that they “do not waive the right to ask
such questions at trial.” Whether or not plaintiff’s prior sexual activity is a proper area
for questioning during trial should be addressed in a motion in limine.

depositions that plaintiff has noticed because the cost is unduly burdensome. However, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(B) provides that the party requesting the additional method of recording
the deposition (e.g. audio or audiovisual) pays the expense of the “additional record.”
Because defendants are requesting that the depositions be videotaped, they are responsible
for the costs of videotaping the depositions.2 Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument that
defendants’ request to videotape plaintiffs’ scheduled depositions is unduly burdensome is
rejected.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (Doc.
157) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 19th day of October, 2011.

S/ Karen M. Humphreys
_______________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

2

However, if plaintiff desires a copy of the audiovisual recording for his own use,
he must pay for his copy. The cost of the audiovisual recording should be a modest
expense.
-2-