Marquis et al v. North Star Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 21

ORDER granting 18 Motion for Protective Order; granting 18 Motion to Quash, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 2/20/15. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALICIA MARQUIS and
GARRETT KING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NORTH STAR MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1157-R

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order
and Request for an Expedited Ruling, or, in the Alternative, Request to Quash Notice for
Deposition. Doc. No. 18. Plaintiffs have noticed a deposition of Defendant for March 5,
2015 at 9:00 AM at the Hyatt Place Minneapolis Airport South in Bloomington,
Minnesota. Doc. No. 15. Defendant asks the Court to order Plaintiffs to take the
deposition in Marshall, Minnesota. Doc. No. 18, at 4.
The Court has “broad discretion over the control of discovery.” S.E.C. v. Merrill
Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cummings v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944, 952 (10th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006)). Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), the Court may issue a protective order for good cause
“to protect a party or person from … oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

Defendant contends that because it is headquartered in Cottonwood, Minnesota,
the deposition should take place in Marshall, Minnesota, the nearest location to
Cottonwood with a court reporter. Doc. No. 18, at 5, 7. It quotes the Tenth Circuit, which
maintains that the “normal procedure” is for the deposition to be taken at a corporation’s
principal place of business. Id. at 7 (citing Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Machs., 48 F.3d 478, 483
(10th Cir. 1995)). Defendant argues that because its counsel has already made plans to
travel to Cottonwood on March 2 to prepare witnesses for the deposition, if the
deposition takes place in Bloomington on March 5, Defendant and its counsel “must
either: (1) spend the night at a hotel in Minneapolis the night before the depositions; or,
(2) awake at approximately 4:30 a.m. the morning of the depositions to travel the two and
one-half hours from their house to the Minneapolis Airport.” Doc. No. 18, at 6.
In response, Plaintiffs state that their counsel has already made travel plans to
Bloomington and requiring them to travel to Marshall would “result in the added expense
of a rental car, and gas, an additional five hours of travel, another hotel night charge, and
food, not to mention additional time away from the office.” Doc. No. 20, at 3, 10. This is
not necessary, they argue, because “[c]orporate defendants are frequently deposed in
places other than the location of the principal place of business, especially in the forum,
for the convenience of all parties and in the general interests of judicial economy.” Id. at
8 (quoting Sugarhill Records Ltd. v. Motown Record Corp., 105 F.R.D. 166, 171
(S.D.N.Y. 1985)). Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the additional expenses of traveling
to Marshall will have a greater impact on them because “every dollar spent in expenses

2

during this litigation, in effect, reduces their available UM coverage and ultimate
recovery.” Doc. No. 20, at 2.
Because the normal procedure is to have a deposition of a corporation’s agents
taken at its principal place of business, and Plaintiffs have not provided a sufficient
reason to depart from this procedure, Defendant’s motion [Doc. No. 18] is GRANTED.
The parties shall hold the deposition of Defendant’s agents in Marshall, Minnesota.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2015.

3