In Re: Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part 95 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 10/20/11 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
In re ARAMARK SPORTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, as
owner of a certain 20’ 2007 Baja Islander
202 for exoneration from or limitation of
liability,
Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:09-cv-637-TC-PMW
District Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Tena Campbell referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is claimant Baja Marine Corporation’s
(“Baja”) motion for a protective order.2 Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for
the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral
argument is not necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
This case is a limitation of liability action that was filed by Aramark Sports and
Entertainment Services, LLC (“Aramark”). In general terms, the case is based on the sinking of a
vessel (“Vessel”) in Lake Powell.
On July 7, 2011, the Estates and Heirs of Robert and Katherine Prescott and the Estates
and Heirs of Terry and Maryanne Taranto’s (collectively, “Claimants”) counsel sent two
1
See docket no. 77.
2
See docket no. 95.
deposition notices to Baja’s counsel, unilaterally setting a deposition of Baja under rule 30(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a fact deposition of Phil Nagy (“Mr. Nagy”) for July
15, 2011, in Page, Arizona.3 On July 12, 2011, Baja filed its motion for a protective order within
three business days of the deposition notices, which invoked the protection of civil rule 26-2 of
the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah and prevented
the above-referenced depositions from going forward. See DUCivR 26-2 (“A party or a witness
may stay a properly noticed oral deposition by filing a motion for a protective order or other
relief by the third business day after service of the notice of deposition. The deposition will be
stayed until the motion is determined. Motions filed after the third business day will not result in
an automatic stay.”).
Mr. Nagy is currently a Technical Account Manager for Mercury Marine, which is a
subsidiary of Brunswick Corporation. Baja was, at one time, also a subsidiary of Brunswick
Corporation. Although Claimants contend that Mercury Marine, Baja, and Brunswick
Corporation are “[f]or legal purposes . . . one and the same,”4 it is undisputed that Mr. Nagy is
not and has never been employed by Baja. According to Baja, Mr. Nagy was specifically
retained by Baja to assist in trial preparation, and Baja has not designated Mr. Nagy as a witness
who will testify in this case.
3
While not dispositive of the instant motion, the court notes that the unilateral noticing
of depositions is not the typical or courteous practice in this district. Prior to simply sending a
unilateral notice of deposition, counsel are expected to consult with other counsel in order to find
a mutually convenient date and time for the deposition. See, e.g., Utah Supreme Court Rules of
Prof’l Practice 14-301, Standard 15 (“Lawyers shall endeavor to consult with other counsel so
that depositions, hearings, and conferences are scheduled at mutually convenient times.”).
4
Docket no. 101 at 3.
2
According to the parties submissions on the instant motion, an inspection of the Vessel
was conducted in February 2010 (“Inspection”). The Inspection took place under the supervision
of the United States Coast Guard and was attended by representatives of the National Park
Service. Aramark’s counsel was present at the Inspection, along with Aramark representatives
and consultants Mark Suttie, Todd Schwede, and Mike Walsh. Baja’s counsel was also present
at the Inspection, along with Mr. Nagy and expert Bill Regan. Claimants were represented at the
Inspection by Ashley Taranto, investigator Bill Heck, and expert Jay McEwan. Finally, Al
Daniels was present, who is an investigating officer for the United States Coast Guard. The
parties to the Inspection agreed to allow Mr. Nagy to remove certain electrical components of the
Vessel to permit him to test the operation of the Vessel’s bilge pump.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the court notes that Baja has indicated in its reply memorandum that
the portion of its motion concerning the rule 30(b)(6) deposition has been rendered moot.
Because that portion of the motion is now moot, the court will not address it further. The court
now turns to the remaining portion of Baja’s motion for a protective order concerning the
deposition of Mr. Nagy.
Baja argues that rule 26(b)(4)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prevents
Claimants from deposing Mr. Nagy because Baja has retained him specifically as a litigation
consultant to assist in trial preparation and has not designated him as an witness who will testify
at trial. Rule 26(b)(4)(D) provides:
Ordinarily, a party may not, by interrogatories or deposition,
discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been
3
retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of
litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called
as a witness at trial. But a party may do so only:
(i) as provided in Rule 35(b); or
(ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is
impracticable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the
same subject by other means.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D).
The first exception set forth in the rule is inapplicable in this case. Rule 35(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs reports prepared by examiners after
court-ordered physical or mental examinations, is not implicated by Baja’s motion. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 35(b). The second exception, however, is at issue as part of Baja’s motion, and a party
seeking disclosure under that exception “carries a heavy burden in demonstrating the existence of
exceptional circumstances.” Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hosp. & Training Sch. for Nurses, 622
F.2d 496, 503 (10th Cir. 1980) (quotations and citation omitted).
Baja argues that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case because Claimants
can obtain information about what occurred at the Inspection from other sources. Specifically,
Baja asserts that Claimants have access to all other parties who attended and observed the
Inspection, including their own expert and investigator. Baja asserts that the individuals who
represented Claimants observed the Inspection, participated in it, and saw first-hand everything
that Mr. Nagy did to the bilge pump. Baja further asserts that, after the Inspection, the Vessel
and the bilge pump were inspected by both the United States Coast Guard and one of Claimants’
experts. Moreover, Baja contends, there is an independent third party who oversaw the
Inspection, namely, the investigating officer for the United States Coast Guard, Al Daniels.
4
Baja has retained Mr. Nagy specifically as a litigation consultant to assist with trial
preparation, and Baja has not designated Mr. Nagy as a witness who will be called at trial.
Accordingly, the court concludes that rule 26(b)(4)(D) is applicable here. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(4)(D). Furthermore, the court agrees with Baja’s argument that Claimants have failed to
carry their heavy burden of demonstrating the existence of exceptional circumstances under the
second exception to rule 26(b)(4)(D). See id. The court is persuaded that it is practicable for
Claimants to obtain the information they seek concerning the Inspection from other sources. See
id. For these reasons, Baja’s motion for a protective order concerning the deposition of Mr. Nagy
is granted.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Baja’s motion for a protective order5 has
been rendered MOOT with respect to Baja’s rule 30(b)(6) deposition and is GRANTED with
respect to the deposition of Mr. Nagy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
5
See docket no. 95.
5
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?