Phillips v. Ottey et al

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 103 motion for protective order. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/27/2016. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : ARTHUR PHILLIPS : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-0980 : DR. COLIN OTTEY, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Presently pending and ready for resolution in this case is a motion for protective order, filed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Defendant”). to the majority of the (ECF No. 103). Defendant objects topics Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) noticed for its deposition. Arthur Phillips Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 109), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 115). The scope of discovery is limited to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to limited scope, in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). an order to embarrassment, including an needs the frequency, and a oppression, to and extent party or or undue prohibiting the terms or a method for the discovery. Pursuant case,” may further the by be court. For good cause shown, the court may “issue protect order of Fed.R.Civ.P. person burden disclosure from or or annoyance, expense,” proscribing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). 26(c), a motion for protective order “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred parties in action.” an or attempted effort Similarly, to to confer resolve Local the Rule with dispute 104.7 other affected without requires court counsel to “confer with one another concerning a discovery dispute and make sincere attempts to resolve the differences between them.” The Local Rule requires the moving party to file “a certificate reciting (a) the date, time, and place of the discovery conference, and the names of all persons participating therein, or (b) counsel’s attempts to hold such a conference without success; and (c) an itemization of the issues requiring resolution by the Court” for the court to consider any discovery motion. Defendant’s motion includes a Local Rule 104.7 Certification certifying: [O]n August 23, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel provided a draft of the Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition to Wexford Health Sources, Inc. to defense counsel. On September 14, 2016, defense counsel provided Wexford’s objections to the draft notice of deposition to Plaintiff’s counsel. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel served the notice of deposition without alteration. This certification does not mention, however, Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt on September 16 to narrow the scope of the deposition in response to Defendant’s objections, although it is described in Defendant’s memorandum of law (ECF No. 103-1, at 23). Defendant counsel’s email. apparently did Defendant’s 2 not respond certification to also Plaintiff’s makes no mention of an attempt to resolve deposition notice was served. that it conferred or this dispute after the Defendant has not demonstrated attempted to confer with Plaintiff to resolve these discovery issues in good faith, and accordingly, its motion will be denied. Although Defendant’s motion will be denied, Plaintiff did previously indicate that the scope of the deposition could be narrowed. He is encouraged, therefore, to focus Defendant’s deposition on those topics that are relevant and important. In addition, the privilege issues identified by Defendant in its motion may be raised appropriately during the deposition and, if necessary, through the preparation of a privilege log. Accordingly, it is this 27th day of December, 2016, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, by Defendant ORDERED that: 1. The motion for protective order filed Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (ECF No. 103) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and 2. The clerk will transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3

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?