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)
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?