The Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor et al v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 65 Motion to Prohibit the Carrying of Firearms and Wearing of Law Enforcement Uniforms at Depositions. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 2/26/2015. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT ETHAN SAYLOR, et al.
v.
REGAL CINEMAS, INC., et al.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. WMN-13-3089

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is a “Motion to Prohibit the Carrying of
Firearms and Wearing of Law Enforcement Uniforms at
Depositions,” ECF No. 65, filed by Plaintiffs, the Estate of
Robert Ethan Saylor, Patricia Saylor, and Ronald Saylor, asking
the Court to prohibit Defendants Richard Rochford, Scott Jewell,
and James Harris (collectively, Deputy Defendants) from carrying
their firearms and wearing their law enforcement uniforms at
depositions.
review.

The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for

Upon a review of the papers, facts, and applicable law,

the Court determines no hearing is necessary, Local Rule 105.6,
and the Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.
All three Deputy Defendants serve in the Frederick County
Sheriff’s Office and are permitted to wear uniforms while on
duty and paid by the Sheriff’s Office.
are required to carry firearms.

When in uniform, they

This motion arises from the

Deputy Defendants’ presence at the February 11, 2015, videotaped
deposition of Regal Cinema Manager Kevin Rhodes.

They attended

the deposition in their full Sheriff Deputy uniforms, including
a firearm.

Plaintiffs are now concerned that continuing this

practice at all remaining depositions will cause undue
discomfort in the deposed witnesses, bordering on intimidation.
As such, they request the Court order the Deputy Defendants to
refrain from wearing their Sheriff’s Office uniform and appear
at all depositions in civilian garb.
The Court finds no compelling reason to grant the requested
relief.

The Plaintiffs request this relief on the grounds that

(1) if the deposition was conducted in the federal courthouse,
Deputy Defendants would be required to relinquish their
firearms; (2) Deputy Defendants were not acting within their
capacity as Sheriff’s Deputies on the night that gave rise to
this action, and, as such, the wearing of uniforms does not
comport with the circumstances of the case; and (3) the
appearance of an armed and uniformed defendant at a deposition
constitutes an “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden, if not
something more akin to intimidation.”

ECF No. 65-1 at 2.

The first two arguments are unavailing to a consideration
of whether the Deputy Defendants are able to attend depositions
in full uniform.

Plaintiffs refer to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 30(c) to support the argument that Deputy Defendants
2

must appear in civilian garb, as this rule “requires that
deposition testimony be taken as it would be in a trial.”
Nos. 65 at 2, 68 at 1.

ECF

Rule 30(c) refers to the application of

the Federal Rules of Evidence, the requirement of placing a
deponent under oath, the operation of objections, and the
necessity and manner of recording deposition testimony.

Rule

30(c), therefore, concerns itself with generating a record of
admissible, truthful evidence that may be used to advance the
parties’ case rather than the physical recreation of trial
conditions.

Rule 30(c) no more obligates a party in an action

to wear certain clothes than requires the deponent to sit in a
witness box or Defense counsel to sit to the left of deponent
and Plaintiff counsel to the right.1

Additionally, a party’s

choice of whether to match their appearance to their condition
on the night at issue in the litigation is strategy best left to
the party rather than a legal issue for the Court.
With regards to employing the Court’s discretion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect a party or
witness from certain conditions within the deposition,
Plaintiffs have cited to no incident of annoyance, oppression,
1

Even if the Court were to accept Plaintiffs’ argument that Rule
30(c) requires the slavish recreation of a trial setting, the
outcome would still not be the one requested in their Motion.
There is no rule barring a law enforcement official from
testifying in open court in uniform and Plaintiff offers no outof-court equivalent of U.S. Marshal custody to ensure that the
officer’s firearm is secure while he is testifying.
3

undue burden, or intimidation by the Deputy Defendants beyond
mere speculation.

Deputy Defendants note that “no intimidation

occurred or was evident” and the “Deputies comported themselves
professionally, without exception” during the Deposition of Mr.
Rhodes.

ECF No. 67 at 4.

Plaintiffs argue that the Deputy

Defendant’s actual conduct and effect on this deposition “is not
the standard by which the Court should consider this motion.”
ECF No. 68 at 3.

That Deputy Defendants are able to attend a

deposition unobtrusively, however, is relevant when considering
their potential comportment in the future.

Plaintiffs rely on

the presence of a firearm in the room to establish ground for
finding potential intimidation, but a firearm constitutes a
standard element of a law enforcement uniform, and carries
different implications when part of a uniform than if an
individual in civilian clothes were to carry a weapon to a
deposition.

In the absence of evidence that would indicate a

likelihood of witness intimidation, the Court declines to
restrict Deputy Defendant’s ability to appear at depositions in
uniform.
To the extent that the Deputy Defendants are on duty or
immediately coming from duty when they attend the Depositions,
their appearance cannot be helped.

Plaintiffs are welcome to

make a record in the deposition transcript if the Deputy
Defendants appear in uniform while off duty or if their
4

appearance has a material effect on a witness.

And if the

Deputy Defendants divert from the professional conduct of their
office, the Court will be willing to entertain any relevant
motion at that time.
Accordingly, it is this 26th day of February, 2015, ORDERED
that:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Prohibit the Carrying of
Firearms and Wearing of Law Enforcement Uniforms at
Depositions”, ECF No. 65, is DENIED; and

(2)

The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this
Memorandum and Order to all counsel of record.

______________/s/__________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

5