Gentry v. Maggie Valley Resort Management, LLC et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Protective Order; granting 18 Motion for Protective Order; granting 18 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 01/09/14. (emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13cv108
JUDITH GENTRY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAGGIE VALLEY RESORT
)
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motion for Protective Order [# 18] and
Motion for Protective Order [# 38]. Defendant Maggie Valley Resort
Management, LLC (“Maggie Valley”) moves the Court to enter a protective order
in this case providing that no depositions be held between December 24, 2013, and
January 1, 2014, and between January 21, 2014, and January 24, 2014. In addition,
Defendant Jay Manner moves the Court to quash a subpoena issued by this Court
and for a Protective Order concerning discovery subpoenas issued by other District
Courts. On January 6, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the motions. The Court
now enters this written Order to memorialize its oral Order of January, 6, 2014.
According, the Court DIRECTS the parties as follows:
(1)

The Court DENIES the Motion for Protective Order [# 38] as
-1-

Defendant Maggie Valley failed to provide sufficient justification for
the entry of a protective order directing Plaintiff that he cannot hold
depositions on the dates in question. Moreover, it appears that
Defendant Maggie Valley has delayed and obstructed the Plaintiff’s
efforts to conduct the depositions in question without sufficient
justification.
(2)

Because the parties appear unable to schedule depositions in this case
in a professional manner as would be expected from members of the
bar, the Court must schedule the parties’ depositions on their behalf.
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the parties that the following
depositions for Plaintiff will occur at the time and place as a directed
by this Court:
(a) Karen Penland – January 10, 2014, in Asheville
(b) Brenda Smith – January 13, 2014, in Greensboro
(c) Purser McCloud – January 17, 2014, in Alabama
(d) Dr. Peter Mangone – January 22, 2014, in Asheville
(e) Jay Manner – January 23, 2014, in Asheville
(f) Tony Hyde – January 29, 2014, in Charlotte
(g) East Coast Partners Rule 30(b)(6) – January 29, 2014, in Charlotte

-2-

(h) Maggie Valley Rule 30(b)(6) – February 1, 2014, in Asheville.
(3)

Because the parties appear unable to schedule depositions in this case
in a professional manner as would be expected from members of the
bar, the Court must schedule the parties’ depositions on their behalf.
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the parties that the following
depositions for Defendant East Coast Partners Club Management
Company, Inc. will occur at the time and place as a directed by this
Court:
(a) Ladonna Thompson – January 20, 2014, in North Mrytle Beach
(b) John Baxley – January 31, 2014, in Asheville
(c) Dirk Kaplinger – January 31, 2014, in Asheville.

(4)

Consistent with this Order, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to take
depositions in excess of the number specified in the Court’s Pretrial
Order.

(5)

The Court GRANTS the Motion for Protective Order [# 18] and
Quashes the subpoena issued to Roaring Gap Club, Inc. As to the
remaining subpoenas issued to Shinnoecock Hills Golf Club, Jupiter
Island Club, Forsyth Country Club, Honours Group, LLC, and Maine
Community College System, the Court ENTERS this Protective

-3-

Order directing the subjects of the subpoenas that they need not
respond to the subpoenas and need not produce the materials
requested by Plaintiff in these subpoenas. The Court finds these
subpoenas to be overbroad. The Court, however, will not require
Plaintiff to seek leave of Court before issuing further subpoenas, and
the Court will not rewrite the subpoenas for counsel to render them
valid as requested by the parties. It is up to counsel, not this Court to
issue a valid and enforceable subpoena that is not overbroad.
(6)

Pursuant to the Court’s inherent power, the Court SANCTIONS
attorney Jonathan Yarbrough in the amount of $500.00. Attorney
Yarbrough shall have until January 17, 2014, to pay this fine to the
Clerk of Court. The Court sanctions Attorney Yarbrough for filing a
legal memorandum in this Court quoting the headnote of a decision of
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and
attempting to pass off such quotation as a quote from the body of the
opinion itself. Moreover, the case cited by counsel does not even
stand for the proposition for which it is cited. Such actions by
members of the bar will not be tolerated by this Court and any attempt
to mislead this Court in such a manner in the future will be met with

-4-

much harsher sanctions. As the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit stated in Russell v. Dir., Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 829 F.2d 615, 617 (7th
Cir. 1987), “[w]e expect more care and candor from the member of
our bar than have been provided in this case.” Although Attorney
Yarbrough stated at the hearing that he was not the individual who
drafted the brief in question and that he had not read the case cited in
the brief, as the attorney signing the pleading in question, it his
obligation pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to ensure that any pleading he signs comports with Rule 11 and that
any cited quotations are actually contained in the body of the cited
opinion.
Signed: January 9, 2014

-5-