JORDYN THULIN
v.
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted in part the defendant's motion to compel discovery and for an enlargement of time, allowing limited re-depositions.
[1] Where a plaintiff fails to timely produce discoverable materials despite a proper discovery request, a limited re-deposition addressing those materials is appropriate as…
[2] The party asserting attorney-client privilege bears the burden of proving the privilege's existence, including establishing the date the attorney-client relationship comm…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Given that Plaintiff does not dispute that she did not timely provide all communications between herself and Mr. Scanlon to Defendant prior to the deposition despite a proper discovery request for same, the Court finds that allowing a limited re-deposition of Plaintiff regarding the text messages appropriate.”
Establishes that lack of timely production of discoverable materials justifies a re-deposition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to produce undisclosed text messages and to re-depose the plaintiff's mother regarding attorney-client pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing Order On Discovery Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc.'s Motion to Compel and for Correlating Enlargement of Time. Doc. No. 83. Plaintiff has responded in opposition, Doc. No. 89, and Defendant has filed an authorized reply, Doc. No. 97, see also Doc. No. 90. Upon consideration, Defendant's motion will be GRANTED in part, for the reasons that follow.
Discovery closed in this matter on December 1, 2025, Doc. No. 49, and has been extended only for the limited purpose of certain expert depositions, Doc. No.
95. Dispositive motions are due March 2, 2026. Doc. No. 95.
Defendant filed the instant motion on the December 1, 2025 discovery deadline. Doc. No. 83. The motion concerns two depositions, Plaintiff's October
30, 2025 deposition, and the November 18, 2025 deposition of Plaintiff's mother, Trisha Thulin. Id. [fn 1] As to Plaintiff's deposition, Defendant contends that at deposition Plaintiff disclosed that she had not produced all text messages between herself and the accused harasser in this case, Jacob Scanlon, despite a discovery request for "any communications between Plaintiff and Scanlon." Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not produce the complete text messages until after deposition on November 24, 2025. Id. Defendant wishes to depose Plaintiff about those text messages. Id.; Doc. No. 97.
Regarding Trisha Thulin's deposition, Defendant says that Plaintiff's counsel made several objections at her deposition based on the attorney-client privilege with instructions not to answer, without any indication on when Plaintiff's counsel began representing Trisha Thulin individually. Doc. No. 83, at 3. [fn 2] Defendant seeks evidence regarding same, and if appropriate, to re-depose Trisha Thulin on the questions to which improper objections were lodged. Id. Defendant also
seeks a 60-day extension of the discovery period to accomplish these tasks, and says that the information is necessary for dispositive motions. Id. at 3-4; Doc. No. 97.
For her part, Plaintiff does not dispute that she did not timely produce all text messages between Mr. Scanlon and herself, nor does she dispute that Defendant properly requested same during discovery. Doc. No. 89, at 1-2. Instead, Plaintiff says that Defendant can conduct cross-examination at trial regarding the text messages, and Defendant has “exhausted (or very nearly exhausted)" the time for Plaintiff's deposition. Id. at 2. [fn 3] As to Trisha Thulin, Plaintiff contends that Defendant seeks irrelevant information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, suggesting, without outright saying, that Plaintiff's counsel represents Trisha Thulin individually. Id. So, Plaintiff opposes both requests, and also opposes an extension of the discovery period for these purposes. Id. at 2-3.
Upon consideration, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive. Given that Plaintiff does not dispute that she did not timely provide all communications between herself and Mr. Scanlon to Defendant prior to the deposition despite a proper discovery request for same, the Court finds that allowing a limited re-deposition of Plaintiff regarding the text messages appropriate, as set forth below. Cf. Daniel v. Navient Sols., LLC, No. 8:17-cv-2503-
T-24JSS, 2019 WL 12528989, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2019) (finding limited second deposition of corporate representative proper where the defendant delayed in timely producing the discovery at issue).
Further, given that there is no dispute that at Trisha Thulin's deposition Plaintiff's counsel raised objections based on attorney-client privilege with instructions not to answer, and that Plaintiff's counsel did not identify the date the attorney-client relationship began, the Court likewise finds that discovery, as limited below, on this issue is appropriate. See generally Regions Bank v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-cv-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 5687882, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2015) (“The party invoking a privilege has the burden of proving its existence." (citations omitted)). Based thereon, the Court will also permit a limited extension of the discovery deadline for these purposes only.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.
Defendant's Motion to compel and for Correlating Enlargement of Time (Doc. No. 83) is GRANTED in part.
2.
Defendant will be permitted to re-depose Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(1). The deposition shall not exceed one (1) hour in length, and shall be limited to addressing the text messages Plaintiff produced to Defendant on November 24, 2025.
3.
Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the date for Plaintiff's deposition. On or before that date, the parties shall file a joint notice with the Court setting forth the date, time, and location of the deposition. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement by that date, Defendant shall file a notice stating same, and the Court will set the deposition on its own accord.