Stiriling et al v. St. Louis County Police Department et al

Filing 345

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 341) for an order allowing Defendant Kathryn Mumford to be deposed by telephone is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Mumford shall not be compelled to appear in person for a deposition in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiffs may elect to take Mumford's deposition in person in Baltimore, Maryland, or by telephone or videotape. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jamison Stiriling's motion (Doc. No. 343) to strike Defendants' above motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/22/2014. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMISON STIRLING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11CV01932 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion for an order allowing
Defendant Kathryn Mumford to be deposed by telephone. Defendants explain that
Mumford now resides in Baltimore, Maryland, and has been employed by the Baltimore
Police Department and is awaiting her assignment with the Department. Plaintiff
Jamison Stiriling opposes the motion. He maintains that Mumford must appear in St.
Louis, Missouri, for her deposition by Plaintiffs, contending that observing Mumford inperson is essential to Plaintiffs’ case.
Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he parties
may stipulate – or the court may on motion order – that a deposition be taken by
telephone or other remote means .” Rule 26(c)(1)(B) authorizes a court to issue a
protective order specifying the time, place, and method of discovery upon a showing of,
inter alia, “undue burden or expense.” “The normal presumption is that a defendant may
take a plaintiff’s deposition where the suit was filed, and that a plaintiff may take a

defendant’s deposition where the defendant resides.” See Woods v. Wills, No. 1:03-CV105 CAS, 2005 WL 5989795, at *4 (E.D. Mo. May 6, 2005) (citing ABA Civil
Discovery Standards, § V.16.f. (Aug. 2004)). Here the Court concludes that Mumford
shall not be compelled to appear in person in St. Louis, Missouri.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 341) for an order
allowing Defendant Kathryn Mumford to be deposed by telephone is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Defendant Mumford shall not be compelled to appear in person for
a deposition in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiffs may elect to take Mumford’s deposition in
person in Baltimore, Maryland, or by telephone or videotape.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jamison Stiriling’s motion (Doc. No.
343) to strike Defendants’ above motion is DENIED as moot.

Audrey G. Fleissig
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 22nd day of July, 2014.

-2-