Ruiz v. The Principal Financial Group et al
Filing
86
Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered denying 84 Motion for Protective Order; denying 84 Motion to Stay (DHH, law2).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORMA RUIZ aka NORMA FONTAIN,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP d/b/a
)
PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
RICHARD VAN LIEW, MICHAEL BENBENK, )
DICK MULLEN AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, )
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-cv-40069-TSH
ORDER
January 7, 2014
Hennessy, M.J.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and an order of referral (Docket #62), I make this
ruling on Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order to Stay Deposition and to
Stay Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); 30(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.2(a) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26.2(1)(A)(B)(C)(2)(A)(B)(c); and Renewed Motion for Relief from Deposition Date
(Document #84). I rely also on the response to same filed by Defendants (Document #85).
Defendants originally scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for June 2013. Plaintiff refused to
attend her deposition, causing Defendants to file a motion to compel her attendance (Document
#18). I allowed the motion and ordered Plaintiff to appear for her deposition by mid-October
(Document #32). Plaintiff again failed to appear. At the December 5, 2013 hearing, I informed
Plaintiff that she must appear for her deposition before January 10, 2014 (Docket #54), and my
written order confirmed the same (Document #55). Plaintiff has offered varying excuses for her
failure to appear, whether it was job-related, health-related, or due to her not having counsel. At
1
this late date, several months after the close of discovery, I will not accept any more excuses.
More than a month ago I gave Plaintiff an additional thirty days from which to schedule her
deposition with Defendants’ counsel. On December 10, 2013, Plaintiff sent Defendants’ counsel
an e-mail selecting January 8, 2014 as a convenient date for her deposition (Document #85-2).
Accordingly, she must appear on the date she chose. I deny Plaintiff’s motion.1
Plaintiff is cautioned that if she fails to appear for her deposition, she will likely suffer
sanctions. Such sanctions could include payment of Defendants’ reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, for her failure to be deposed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(g); and other sanctions for
her failure to obey my December 10, 2013 Order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) for a list of
possible sanctions, including the sanctions of dismissal of this action and finding Plaintiff in
contempt of court.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, I order that Plaintiff’s motion for protective order, to set aside
show cause order, etc. (Document #84) be DENIED. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to appear
at her deposition on January 8, 2014 as scheduled.
/s/David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
United States Magistrate Judge
1
I note that Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ opposition were both filed today, January 7,
2014. In their opposition filed early this afternoon, Defendants offered several dates over the
following weeks within which to reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition (Document #85, p.2). In
response, a member of my staff left two detailed phone messages with Plaintiff in an
unsuccessful attempt to ascertain her availability on those dates. Because Plaintiff did respond in
the two hours afforded her by my staff, and because the deposition is scheduled to happen
tomorrow morning, I am unwilling to modify my December 10, 2013 Order at this late date.
2
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?