Neiufi et al v. Snow Garden Apartments et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 26 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 05/02/2013. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
AMONI NEIUFI, SIOSAIA NAETA, TRÉ
JAMES, DAMOND POWELL, BRIAN
COBBS, LEE CROSBY, MONDARIOUS
BENSON,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Case No. 2:12-cv-774 RJS - BCW

Plaintiffs,
v.

District Judge Robert J. Shelby

SNOW GARDEN APARTMENTS,
ANTHONY WILLIAM DAVIS,

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule
26(c)(1)(B), Defendants seek a “protective order regarding the scheduled deposition of Plaintiffs
Tre James, Damon Powell and Lee Crosby.” 2 The depositions are scheduled for this coming
Saturday May 4th. Defendants represent that they were scheduled without being conferred with
and were set five working days after notice and on a Saturday, which is not reasonable notice as
required by Rule 30. As set forth below the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.
Rule 30 provides in relevant part that “A party who wants to depose a person by oral
questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party.” 3 Here, notice was sent to
Defendants regarding Plaintiffs’ depositions on April 26th, approximately eight days before they
were going to occur. Defendants argue this is not reasonable notice. In contrast, Plaintiffs assert
that under the circumstance of this case the notice was reasonable. These circumstances include:
1

Docket no. 26. This matter has been referred to the undersigned by Judge Robert Shelby pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636 (B)(1)(A).

2

Mtn. p. 1.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) (2011).

1) Plaintiffs are college students from other states attending Snow College in Ephraim, Utah who
will be graduating and leaving Utah shortly. They brought suit against Defendants for their
refusal to rent housing to them and it would be a large financial burden to make Plaintiffs return
to Utah to be deposed at a later date, or to make them pay for Defendants’ counsel to travel to
where they live; 2) The delay in providing discovery was created in part by Defendants, which
necessitated a Motion to Compel that this Court granted in part; 4 3) The difficulty Plaintiffs’
counsel has had in scheduling these depositions, including the fact that originally Defendants’
counsel tentatively agreed to hold them on April 26th only later to cancel them without providing
notice; 4) The “facts underlying the deponents’ testimony are simple” 5 and the depositions will
be relatively short; And 5) a lack of alternative dates for depositions.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that the determination of the reasonableness
of notice for a deposition under Rule 30(b)(1) is case-specific and fact-intensive. 6 After a review
of the history of this case, the correspondence between the parties, and based upon the
circumstances in this matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs provided reasonable notice of their
depositions under Rule 30. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Protective
Order.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs suggest an alternative to holding the depositions
this coming Saturday—taking the depositions at a future time telephonically so as to reduce the
costs incurred by Plaintiffs. The Court believes this is a viable alternative and will leave it to the
4

Docket no. 24.

5

Op. p. 6.

6

See e.g., Bethany Medical Center v. Harder, 1987 WL 47845, 9 (D.Kan. Mar. 12, 1987) (determining under the
circumstances that defendant’s witness did not receive reasonable notice of the deposition); see also Smith v.
Stephens, 2012 WL 899347, *3 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 16, 2012) (noting that a determination of what is reasonable notice
is case-specific and fact-intensive); FLOE Intern. , Inc. v. Newmans’ Mfg. Inc., 2005 WL 6218040, *5 (D.Minn.
Nov. 9, 2005) (same); In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 320, 2005 WL 2059327, *6 (N.D.Ill.2005)
(same).

2

discretion of the parties whether to hold the depositions this coming Saturday or reschedule them
at a future date to be taken telephonically.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Protective
Order. 7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties provide the Court within ten (10) days from
the date of this order, a status update regarding either an agreed upon future date to hold the
depositions telephonically or notice that the depositions occurred as currently scheduled for
Saturday May 4th.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2 May 2013.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

7

Docket no. 26.

3