Annabel v. Frost et al

Filing 138

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

Download PDF
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-

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?