Gichner et al v. Arvinmeritor, Inc. et al

Filing 144

ORDER granting 140 Motion to Take Deposition from David Gichner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 8/22/2018. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

August 22, 2018
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

David Gichner, et al. v. Arvinmeritor, Inc. et al.,
Civil No. RDB-18-1071

Dear Counsel:
This matter has been referred to me for discovery disputes and related scheduling matters.
[ECF No.143]. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for an Expedited Deposition of Plaintiff David
Gichner. [ECF No.140]. Two of the Defendants, Genuine Parts Company and Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, have opposed the motion. [ECF No. 141, 142]. I find that no hearing is necessary.
See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Expedited
Deposition is GRANTED, pursuant to the terms described below.
Plaintiffs are authorized to proceed with the expedited deposition as proposed on
September 4, 2018, with the following caveats: 1) the expedited deposition will be conducted at
Plaintiffs’ expense, excepting Defendants’ attorneys’ fees but including Defendants’ travel costs;
2) Defendants will have the right to conduct a subsequent deposition of Mr. Gichner during the
discovery period; and 3) Defendants will be able to challenge the admissibility of the expedited
deposition, or any portion thereof, if subsequent discovery not available at the time of the
expedited deposition undermines Defendants’ ability to cross-examine Mr. Gichner.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs can choose to comply with the document requests and proposed
scheduling set forth in Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC’s letter of August 9, 2018. This option would
better ensure the later admissibility of the video deposition, and would prevent Mr. Gichner from
having to undergo more than one deposition.
Whichever option is selected, Defendants’ participation in this court-ordered discovery
deposition will not constitute waiver of their affirmative defense that the Complaint is legally
insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

1

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

2