Zsenyuk v. Kamps, Inc. et al
ORDER Denying 14 Motion for Protective Order Under Rule 26(c)(1)(B). Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 12-cv-14625
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain
KAMPS, INC., a Michigan Corporation
d/b/a KAMPS PALLETS, INC., et al.,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order under Rule
26(c)(1)(B), filed on January 18, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on January 25,
2013. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to
demonstrate they are entitled to the relief sought in their Motion for Protective Order.
Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant Bernard Kamps, the President of Defendant
Kamps Pallets, Inc., to take place on March 6, 2013, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Defendants
seek a protective order requiring Plaintiff to notice the deposition of Defendant Kamps in Kent
County, Michigan because Defendant Kamps resides and has an office in Kent County, Michigan.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(B) states:
(c) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for
a protective order in the court where the action is pending–or as an alternative on
matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition is
to be taken. The motion must include certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the
dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B). Most of the cases relied on by Defendants in support of their Motion
for Protective Order are distinguishable from the present matter because in those cases the proposed
deponent either lived in another country or was not a named defendant and lived outside the state
where the deposition was to be taken. See In re Outsidewall Tire Litigation, 267 F.R.D. 466, 477
(E.D. Va. 2010); Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, (5th Cir. 1979); Dunn v. Standard Fire
Insurance Co., 93 F.R.D. 31 (E.D. Tenn. 1981); Aerocrine AB v. Apieron Inc., 267 F.R.D. 105 (D.
Del. 2010). Further, the Court declines to follow General Leasing Co. v. Lawrence Photo-Graphic
Supply, Inc., 84 F.R.D. 130 (W.D. Mo. 1979), which held that “[i]n the absence of exceptional or
unusual circumstances, when a deponent resides at a substantial distance from the deposing party’s
residence, the deposing party should be required to take the deposition at a location in the vicinity
in which the deponent resides, even if the deponent is a party.” Id. at 131. General Leasing is not
controlling upon this Court and does not persuade the Court that entry of a protective order is
appropriate under the circumstances present here.
While “a general presumption that the deposition of a corporation by its agents and officers
should ordinarily be taken at its principal place of business[,] . . . notwithstanding the generally
recognized rule, courts have often required corporate defendants to produce their officers at
locations other than the corporation’s principal place of business where there has been no showing
that the defendant will suffer any resulting financial hardship.” Aerocrine AB, 267 F.R.D. at 108.
Here, Defendant Kamps has failed to make any showing that traveling to this district will pose an
undue burden or expense upon him. In any event, Defendant Kamps was named as a defendant not
only because of his title but also because Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant Kamps’s religious and
gender bias led to her termination.
Based on the above considerations, a protective order requiring Plaintiff to notice Defendant
Kamps’s deposition in Kent County, Michigan is unwarranted. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion
for Protective Order under Rule 26(c)(1)(B) [#14] is DENIED.
Dated: February 11, 2013
/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge
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?