DOLLARD
v.
CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR, FLORIDA
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 held that a plaintiff seeking a protective order for a remote deposition must demonstrate good cause, which was not met by general COVID-19 concerns or family health issues without personal risk.
Plaintiff requested a protective order to conduct his deposition remotely due to COVID-19 concerns and family health issues. Defendant opposed, seekin…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(C) (Protective Orders) cases and more on FLexlaw
The court may, for good cause, issue an order to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F. 2d 352, 355 (11th Cir. 1987) (providing that the district court may issue a protective order if “good cause” is shown). The party seeking a protective order has the burden to demonstrate good cause. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429–30 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “‘Good cause’ is a well-established legal phrase. Although difficult to define in absolute terms, it generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” Alexander, 820 F. 2d at 356. Establishing good cause requires a “particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” Ekokotu v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 408 F. App’x 331, 336 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration, Plaintiff has not established good cause for the court to enter a protective order directing a remote deposition. Plaintiff alleges that his family members are immunocompromised, but does not allege any personal health concerns.
Further, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the increased COVID-19 cases in the Tampa Bay area and the identification of a new variant are insufficient to warrant a protective order. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empower Defendant, as the party taking the deposition, to determine the medium and location of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Plaintiff has not established good cause for the court to circumvent Defendant’s selected medium. See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon Belo, No. 3:19-cv-1535, 2021 WL 6882434, at *3 (N.D. Fla. July 12, 2021) (denying motion for video deposition, noting that pandemic concerns “[do] not, standing alone, give the Court a basis to compel a litigant to take a remote deposition when that litigant has reasonably elected otherwise”); see also Tsien v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, No. cv 121-008, 2021 WL 6617307, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2021), affd, No. cv 121-008, 2021 WL 6617308 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 20, 2021) (denying motion for remote deposition during pandemic). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Time-Sensitive Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 53) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on April 25, 2022.
i ea JUKIE §. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352 (11th Cir. 1987)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426 (M.D. Fla. 2005)