Fontenot v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 34 Motion to Quash Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 05/31/2016. (crt,Williams, L)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
STEPHANIE FONTENOT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-01972

VERSUS

JUDGE DEE D. DRELL

WAL-MART STORES, INC. and
CAROLYN ALLEMAND

MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Quash Deposition [Rec. Doc. 34] filed by Defendant,
Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC (“Wal-Mart”), Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Quash Deposition of Janine Cunningham [Rec. Doc. 39], and Wal-Mart’s Reply
thereto [Rec. Doc. 40].
Wal-Mart seeks to quash the deposition of Janine Cunningham set to take place by videoconferencing on June 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Wal-Mart argues that the deposition should be
quashed because Wal-Mart did not stipulate to Plaintiff taking the deposition of the witness by
remote means and Plaintiff has not motioned for a court order that the deposition be taken by
remote means.
Plaintiff asserts that she has been attempting to schedule the deposition of the witness
since October 2015 and that Wal-Mart was fully aware that such deposition was to take place via
video-conferencing and did not oppose the deposition being taken by remote means until it was
finally scheduled. In support of her position, Plaintiff attaches a series of emails between counsel
for Plaintiff and counsel for Wal-Mart wherein the video conferencing deposition was discussed
[Rec. Doc. 39, Exh. F]. In her opposition, Plaintiff specifically requests an order from the Court

allowing the deposition to take place via video conferencing. [Rec. Doc. 39, p. 2].
Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(4), “the parties may stipulate – or the court may on motion order –
that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means.” It is the burden of the party
noticing the deposition to “establish a legitimate reason for its motion.” United States v. All
Funds on Deposit at Old Mut. Of Berm. Ltd. Contract Number CX4011696, 2014 WL 1912091
(S.C. Tex. May 13, 2014)(citing Brown v. Carr, 253 F.R.D. 410, 412 (S.D. Tex. 2008)). A party
opposing such deposition must establish good cause as to why it should not be conducted in such
a manner. Id. Generally, leave to take depositions by remote means should be granted liberally.
Brown, 253 F.R.D. at 412.
The emails submitted by Plaintiff evidence a clear understanding by the parties that the
deposition of Janine Cunningham would be taken via video-conferencing. [Rec. Doc. 39, Exh.
F]. In an email dated May 3, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff specifically requests from counsel for
Wal-Mart, the location of the witness in order to “set up a video-conferencing deposition close to
the adjuster’s area/work place, etc.” Id. (emphasis added) In a later email dated May 5, 2010,
counsel for Plaintiff requests from counsel for Wal-Mart, available dates so that “I can subpoena
and set up the video conferencing deposition of the CMI adjuster[.]” Id. (emphasis added). In yet
another email dated May 6, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff asks counsel for Wal-Mart to reserve
specific dates for Ms. Cunningham’s deposition so that the counsel for Plaintiff could “check
with the video conferencing people to see if they are available on those dates.” Id. (emphasis
added). In the final email dated May10, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff requests that counsel for WalMart reserve the date of June 16, 2016 as the deposition date for Ms. Cunningham and confirms
that counsel for Plaintiff has “contacted a video conference/court reporter’s office and they are
holding that date.” Id. (emphasis added).

In responding to these emails, counsel for Wal-Mart never opposed or questioned the
suggestion that the deposition be taken by remote means.1 Such acquiescence by counsel for
Wal-Mart indicates to the Court that there was a stipulation by Wal-Mart to taking of the
deposition by remote means.
Accordingly, the Motion to Quash Deposition [Rec. Doc. 34] filed by Defendant, WalMart Louisiana, LLC (“Wal-Mart”) is DENIED.
Signed this 31st day of May, 2016 at Lafayette, Louisiana.

1

In fact, in response to the May 6, 2016 email in which counsel for Plaintiff asked
counsel for Wal-Mart to hold specific dates for the deposition so that those dates could be
coordinated with the person who would be conducting the video conference, counsel for WalMart simply replied, “Absolutely! Thanks!”