Rhodes v. City of Phoenix

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Telephonic Deposition Notices of Defendant(s) City of Phoenix et al 1 is dismissed as moot. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum and order. All pending motions are denied. The clerk of the court shall send a copy of this memorandum and order to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed as directed) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DAVID E. RHODES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3008

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before me on the “Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and to
Quash Telephonic Deposition Notices of Defendant(s) City of Phoenix et al,” which
seeks to prevent a telephonic deposition in a case filed by the plaintiff, David E.
Rhodes (“Rhodes”) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
(Filing No. 1.) See also Rhodes v. City of Phoenix, 2:11-cv-01032-SRB (D. Ariz.).
“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 will be taken.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
Although Rule 26 permits Rhodes to move for a protective order in this court,
he simultaneously filed his complaint in this matter and a motion for protective order
in the court where the action is pending. (Filing No. 1.) See also Motion for
Protective Order, Motion to Quash Telephonic Deposition Notices, Rhodes v. City of
Phoenix, 2:11-cv-01032-SRB (D. Ariz. Jan. 8, 2013), ECF No. 118. On January 14,
2013, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the motion
for protective order. See Rhodes v. City of Phoenix, 2:11-cv-01032-SRB (D. Ariz.
Jan. 8, 2013), ECF No. 122. Because the forum court has already ruled on Rhodes’
simultaneously filed motion for protective order, I will defer to that ruling and

dismiss Rhodes’ motion for protective order and to quash telephonic deposition
notices of defendant(s) City of Phoenix.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Telephonic
Deposition Notices of Defendant(s) City of Phoenix et al (filing no. 1)
is dismissed as moot.

2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
memorandum and order.

3.

All pending motions are denied.

4.

The clerk of the court shall send a copy of this memorandum and order
to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Dated February 19, 2013.
BY THE COURT

___________________________________________
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District Judge

11

The Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 26(c) (Protective Orders) explains
that “[t]he court in the district where the deposition is being taken may, and
frequently will, remit the deponent or party to the court where the action is pending.”
2

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3