James v. Covidien PLC et al
Filing
29
ORDER OVERRULING 25 OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION. See Order for details. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on September 30, 2015. (CLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JONATHAN JAMES,
Case No. 15‐CV‐1179 (PJS/FLN)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
COVIDIEN LP,
Defendant.
Alf E. Sivertson and Marit M. Sivertson, LAW OFFICE OF SIVERTSON
AND BARRETTE, PA, for plaintiff.
Joseph D. Weiner and Marko J. Mrkonich, LITTLER MENDELSON, PC,
for defendant.
Plaintiff Jonathan James alleges that defendant Covidien LP retaliated against
him and eventually fired him, violating Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat.
§ 181.932, subd. 1(1). In an order dated September 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Franklin L.
Noel granted Covidien’s motion for a protective order, permitting Covidien to depose
James before his own counsel deposes him. This matter is before the Court on James’s
objection to that order.
A magistrate judge’s ruling on nondispositive pretrial matters may be reversed
only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a). Having carefully reviewed Judge Noel’s order and the parties’
submissions, the Court finds that the order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law. Indeed, the Court is puzzled why James’s own lawyers would need to depose
him, given that they can simply pick up the phone and ask him any questions that they
have, and given that they can draft an affidavit for him that contains any testimony that
he wishes to submit in connection with any motion. Because the Court can discern no
legitimate reason why James’s attorneys would need take their own client’s deposition
at all—much less before Covidien is prepared to take his deposition—the Court agrees
with Judge Noel that permitting Covidien to depose James before his own counsel
depose him would further the “interests of justice” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2)) and would
protect Covidien from “undue burden [and] expense” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)).
Judge Noel’s order is therefore affirmed.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s objection [ECF No. 25] is OVERRULED and
the September 4, 2015 order [ECF No. 24] is AFFIRMED.
Dated: September 30, 2015
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-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?