Perez v. Silva et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 71 Motion of plaintiff for Protective Order. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 2/16/2017. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
THOMAS E. PEREZ,
Secretary of Labor,
United States Department of Labor,
RICARDO SILVA et al.,
CIVIL NO. JKB-15-3484
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 71), asking
the Court to quash most of the items in notices for depositions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6), served upon the Secretary by Defendant AmeriGuard Security Services, Inc.,
and by Defendants Charles Ezrine and State Employee Benefits, Inc. The Court has considered
the motion, Defendants’ responses in opposition (ECF No. 72 and 73), and Plaintiff’s reply (ECF
No. 74). No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). The motion will be granted,
as modified by the Court.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments persuasive and particularly relies upon the
reasoning of other judges of this Court in the cases of E.E.O.C. v. McCormick & Schmick’s
Seafood Restaurants, Inc., Civ. No. WMN-08-984, 2010 WL 2572809 (D. Md. June 22, 2010),
and S.E.C. v. SBM Inv. Certificates, Inc., Civ. No. DKC-06-866, 2007 WL 609888 (D. Md.
Feb. 23, 2007). As was concluded in those cases, the undersigned has no difficulty in concluding
that Defendants’ notices seek, for the most part, attorney work product and that Defendants have
failed to justify any need for such. The only exception is for the items regarding calculation of
damages, and Plaintiff does not object to those items.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order
(ECF No. 71) IS GRANTED, that items one through thirteen, sixteen, and seventeen of
AmeriGuard’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice ARE QUASHED, and that items one through nine of Ezrine
and State Employee Benefits, Inc.’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice ARE QUASHED.
DATED this 16th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
AmeriGuard has pointed out in its opposition that Plaintiff erroneously referred to the unobjected-to
items of damages in AmeriGuard’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice and that the two items in that notice pertaining to damages
are fourteen and fifteen. (Def. AmeriGuard’s Opp’n 2 n.1.) Plaintiff has not challenged that correction, and the
Court agrees that AmeriGuard’s corrected reference is valid.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?