Brown et al v. CSAA Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
Filing
76
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Sanctions (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SCOTT LANE BROWN,
LAURIE ANN BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CSAA FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign for profit Insurance
Corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 18-CV-60-GKF-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
The deposition of Defendant’s claim supervisor ended after a little more than 3 hours
of testimony when the witness perceived that Plaintiff’s counsel was “smiling and kind of
cracking up a little bit.” The parties now bring competing motions to terminate or resume
the deposition under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3). [Dkts. 41 and 42].
The court has read the transcript of the deposition and reviewed the video portion
of the deposition provided by the Plaintiff. Based upon that review, the court concludes that
the deposition should be resumed because Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct of the deposition
did not unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent. This conclusion,
however, should not be seen as a complete endorsement of Plaintiff’s attorney’s conduct.
At times during the deposition, Plaintiff’s attorney asked clearly relevant questions in an
appropriate manner. However, at other times, Plaintiff’s attorney’s questions were not
clearly relevant, were repetitious, and often times were preceded by improper comments.
In other words, both Plaintiff’s attorney and the witness bear some responsibility for
this problem. At the resumed deposition, both Plaintiff’s attorney and the witness shall
avoid the conduct which led to this dispute.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Continued Deposition of Courtney Powell;
Motion for Costs and Sanctions, [Dkt. 41], and Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and
for Sanctions, [Dkt. 42], are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Each side will bear
their own fees and costs related to this motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 4th day of April, 2019.
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?