Annabel v. Frost et al

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 121 Motion for Protective Order - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT ANNABEL,
Plaintiff,

No. 14-10244

v.

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

JACK FROST, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Annabel has filed a motion for protective order [Doc. #121], in
which he seeks an order precluding Defendants “from asserting Plaintiff’s default by
failure to attend deposition unless it is supported by video and audio recordings verifying
that Plaintiff was both asked to attend and that he refused without good cause.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(C) provides that a party may seek a protective order
“prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking
discovery.” In this motion and in his previous motion to strike the Defendants’ motion to
take his deposition [Doc. #85], Plaintiff accuses Defendants’ counsel of gamesmanship
and chicanery in discovery, and suggests that “[s]ince [Defendants] have no factual
defense they were scheming to use deposition to fabricate a technical legal default to gain
dismissal.” Motion [Doc. #121], Pg. ID 1295.
On July 25, 2017, I granted Defendants’ motion to take Plaintiff’s deposition,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) [Doc. #106]. In my order denying Plaintiff’s motion to
strike [Doc. #108], I noted, “Any defendant, including these Defendants, get[s] to depose
a plaintiff. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated, leave of the court is required to take his
-1-

deposition.”
The present motion, like many of Plaintiff’s filings, is replete with hyperbole and
speculation about defense counsel’s allegedly nefarious motives. Plaintiff has not
presented any facts, however, that would commend granting his motion for protective
order to require audio and video recording of his deposition. The deposition will be
accurately recorded by a court reporter, and there will be a certified transcript of the
proceedings. If Plaintiff has any objections during the course of the deposition, he may
place those objections on the record.
Plaintiff’s motion for protective order [Doc. #121] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: October 6, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on October 6, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-