Sandres v. State Of Louisiana Division Of Administration et al

Filing 110

RULING granting 109 Motion for Reason Pltf Was Not Entitled to a Warning in Writing of Limited Time to Respond to Defts Motion, to the extent that the explanation has been provided. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 4/24/2009. (JDL, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NAOMI SANDRES CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER 08-145-FJP-SCR STATE OF LOUISIANA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT RULING MOTION FOR REASON Before the court is the plaintiff's Motion for Reason

Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to a Warning in Writing of Limited Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion If Not the Customary Time Limit Given, Docket Number 96. Record document number 109.

This motion is unnecessary and serves only to waste the parties' - and the court's - time and resources. The district

judge's Ruling ordered the plaintiff to be deposed within 30 days after February 4, 2009.1 The order did not require that the

defendant schedule the plaintiff's deposition on a date convenient for the plaintiff, or even that she be consulted about the date. Plaintiff never had - either before the district judge's order or because of it - a "right" to choose the date and time for her deposition. She had that opportunity - but she squandered it by

not agreeing to be deposed any of the dates offered by the defendant.2 Plaintiff points to no provision of the Federal Rules

1

Record document number 94.

See record document number 76, Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition.

2

of Civil Procedure which give her any "right" to pick where and when she will be deposed. Defendant requested to take the plaintiff's deposition on February 25, which was clearly within the district judge's 30-day time limit, and that it be taken at the courthouse. Given the

contentious discovery history in this case, it was reasonable to request that her deposition be taken at a location where a judicial officer would be immediately available to resolve any discovery dispute that might arise. During the course of the deposition, a

dispute did arise and was resolved promptly by the magistrate judge. Plaintiff has offered nothing to show that taking her

deposition at the courthouse was more inconvenient for her than it was for the defendant. Clearly, she could not have made any

plausible argument in opposition to the defendants request when the request was made. Waiting for the plaintiff to make a meritless argument would have delayed her deposition and likely have caused both parties to violate the district judges's 30-day deadline. Even now, in her motion, the plaintiff makes no argument that taking her deposition at the courthouse was not warranted, or that scheduling it for February 25 was somehow improper. The court has the duty under Rule 1, Fed.R.Civ.P., to construe and administer the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." The court has the discretion under Rule 26 to issue

protective orders as a means of controlling discovery and achieving

2

the goal of Rule 1.

Granting the defendant's motion to depose the

plaintiff at the courthouse before waiting for her to file a response was entirely consistent with both Rule 1 and Rule 26. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion is granted to the extend that the foregoing explanation has been provided. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 24, 2009.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3