Paternostro et al v. Choice Hotels International Services Corp. et al

Filing 610

ORDER & REASONS that the Joint 572 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will limit the number of Plaintiffs' proposed 30(b)(6) depositions to ten organizations that held meetings or conventions at the Hotel and booked rooms at the Hotel during the relevant time period, which is from January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 8/3/15. (Reference: All Cases)(dno)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ANGELA PATERNOSTRO, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 13-0662

CHOICE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP.,
D/B/A/ CLARION INN AND SUITES, ET AL.

SECTION “L” (5)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

ALL CASES
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order challenging Plaintiffs’
proposed 30(b)(6) depositions (Rec. Doc. 572). Having considered the parties’ briefs and the
applicable law, the Court now issues this order.
This action arises out of the alleged presence of Legionella and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
i.e., the causative agent of Legionnaire’s disease, at the Clarion Inn and Suites Hotel in
Covington, Louisiana. The parties are presently conducting discovery in this matter. Defendants
Choice Hotels International, Inc. and Century Wilshire, Inc., the franchisor and franchisee of the
hotel, seek to prohibit the Plaintiffs from issuing their proposed Rule 30(b(6) depositions of 45
non-parties, consisting primarily of organizations that responded to Hurricane Isaac in 2012.
Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The rule specifies
that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The discovery rules
are accorded a broad and liberal treatment to achieve their purpose of adequately informing
litigants in civil trials. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979). Nevertheless, discovery
does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U .S.

340, 351 (1978) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). Furthermore, “it is well
established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Coleman
v. Amer. Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th Cir.1994).
Given the broad treatment afforded discovery, Plaintiffs have the right to seek discovery
in order to determine whether there was a Legionella outbreak at the Hotel, whether any
additional individuals were exposed to the bacteria and, if so, where and when that exposure
occurred. Although the information sought may not be admissible at trial, it is nonetheless
relevant for discovery purposes. However, the number of depositions sought is excessive and
raises questions of harassment as it seeks to encourage litigation rather than elicit information.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Protective Order (Rec. Doc.
572) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will limit the number of
Plaintiffs’ proposed 30(b)(6) depositions to ten organizations that held meetings or conventions
at the Hotel and booked rooms at the Hotel during the relevant time period, which is from
January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of August, 2015.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2