SUBPOENA SERVED UPON LELAND SCHERMER

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER taking under advisement 1 Leland Schermer's Motion for Protective Order until such time as La-Z-Boy makes a decision and provides this court with notice as to whether it will proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Megdal A ssociates and/or a deposition of Leland Schermer & Associates, P.C.; staying the deposition of Leland Schermer as a witness in any capacity until an order on the pending motion for a protective order is issued; and granting in part 4 La-Z-Boy's cross motion to compel compliance to the extent it seeks relief consistent with the orders above and denying the motion in all other aspects. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 5/27/15. (mwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: Subpoena Served Upon
Leland Schermer

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Misc. No. 2:15-mc-122
Electronic Filing
Megdal Associates, LLC v.
La-Z-Boy Inc., 14-81476 – CIV –
ZLOCH
Underlying Case - S.D. of Fla.

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF STAY
AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2015, upon due consideration of the motion for
protective order filed by Leland Schermer and the parties' submissions in conjunction therewith,
IT IS ORDERED that the [1] the motion be, and the same hereby is, taken under advisement
until such time as La-Z-Boy makes a decision and provides this court with notice as to whether it
will proceed with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Megdal Associates and/or a deposition of Leland
Schermer & Associates, P.C.;
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the deposition of Leland Schermer as a witness in any
capacity is stayed until an order on the pending motion for a protective order is issued; and
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that [4] La-Z-Boy's cross motion to compel compliance be,
and the same hereby is, granted to the extent it seeks relief consistent with the orders above and
denied in all other aspects.
At this juncture the court is unable to determine with any degree of accuracy whether the
anticipated noticing of multiple depositions involving Leland Schermer will come to fruition,
which in turn has a direct bearing on whether the harm perceived by the movant will materialize
and give rise to a need to rule on the motion for protective order; or the matter will be rendered
moot by La-Z-Boy deciding to forego a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Megdal Associates and

Leland Schermer & Associates, P.C.. La-Z-Boy has control over this decision: in the event it
notices a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Megdal Associates and/or Leland Schermer & Associates,
then the court can determine whether, and if so, to what degree, relief should be granted pursuant
to the protective order; in the event it elects to forego a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Megdal
Associates and Leland Schermer & Associates, then the matter will be moot and there is no need
for the court to consider and make a ruling on the motion for a protective order. Such clarity also
may inure to La-Z-Boy's benefit: in the event it is determined that relief should be granted, then
it can be better determined whether the day and time limitations proposed by the movant are
warranted given the scope of discovery which will then be identified.
In contrast, simply denying the motion for a protective order at this time and permitting
the deposition of Leland Schermer as a fact witness to proceed would effectively place the
matters raised in the motion beyond the court's ability to resolve, and if, appropriate, provide
effective protection. La-Z-Boy's equivocation about whether it will pursue the multiple
depositions cannot serve as a sound basis for the court's resolution of such matters.
Consequently, the above orders taking the motion under advisement and staying the deposition
of Leland Schermer in any capacity until La-Z-Boy is sufficiently informed and makes binding
decisions about its discovery needs strikes the appropriate balance between issuing an advisory
order or failing to consider and address the need for potential relief raised in the pending motion.
s/David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
cc:

Stanley M. Stein, Esquire
Adam B. Landa, Esquire
Brian T. Feeney, Esquire
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)
2