RUBIO
v.
ALGO CAPITAL, LLC
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's allegations of fraud in a complaint are insufficient to establish good cause for a protective order to prevent their deposition.
Plaintiff sought a protective order to prevent his deposition, arguing it was an abuse of process designed to harass him. The defendants opposed the m…
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 Right To Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
This showing falls far short of the lofty requirements to protect a plaintiff from being deposed in his own case. “When evaluating whether a movant has satisfied his burden of establishing ‘good cause' for a protective order preventing a deposition, a court should balance the non-moving party's interest in obtaining discovery and preparing for trial against the moving party's proffer of harm that would result from the deposition.” Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641, 642 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Fransworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F. 2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)). Indeed, "[i]t is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether and absent extraordinary circumstances, such an order would likely be in error.” Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F. 2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979).
Here, Plaintiff has not made any specific showing that there exists good cause to prevent his deposition; he has simply recapitulated his allegations in this lawsuit. Additionally, Defendants have a compelling interest to depose Plaintiff; providing a protective order for this deposition would plainly “frustrat[e] ... Defendant's right to discovery of critical facts and information that cannot be obtained from any source other than [Plaintiff].” Baratta, 242 F.R.D. at 643; see also Trinos v. Quality Staffing Serus. Corp., 250 F.R.D. 696, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (denying motion for protective order because "Plaintiffs have put forth insufficient evidence for this Court to depart from these general rules or to find that a weighing of the equities justifies the entry of a protective order”).
2
Thus, because Plaintiff has not shown good cause to prevent his deposition, his motion for protective order is DENIED. Plaintiff must sit for his deposition within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. Plaintiff shall appear at the time and place designated on the notice of the taking of his deposition. Defendant shall provide three alternative dates for that deposition and Plaintiff shall choose one of those dates for the deposition. The deposition shall not take more than seven hours of examination time. Plaintiff shall answer all questions posed, regardless of any objection that he may have to the question. Plaintiffs objections to any such question are preserved for review at trial.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida this 1st day of October, 2024.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
3
[fn 1]: On May 28, 2024, the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra referred all discovery matters to the Undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition. [D.E. 51].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lender Processing Servs., Inc. v. ARCH Ins. Co., 183 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…e breach his duty as to some of them. We thus conclude that there was a waiver of the privilege on the issue of authority to settle, as a matter of law. Id. at 555 (emphasis added). Respondent also relies upon Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641 (S.D.Fla.2007). There, the district court denied the plaintiffs motion for a protective order. Id. at 642. At issue was whether the plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Martin, had settlement authority in the case when he reached a settlement with the defendan…
-
Rubio v. Algo Cap., LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641 (S.D. Fla. 2024)…er preventing a deposition, a court should balance the non-moving party's interest in obtaining discovery and preparing for trial against the moving party's proffer of harm that would result from the deposition.” Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641, 642 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Fransworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)). Indeed, "[i]t is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether and absent extraordinary circumstances, such an orde…1 / 2
-
Penrod Bros. Inc v. City of Miami Beach (S.D. Fla. 2024)…States, 373 F.2d 326, 327 (5th Cir. 1967) (concluding that an appellant waived attorney-client privilege by contending that his defense attorney failed to adequately represent him during his criminal proceeding); Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641, 643 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (“In this case, to allow Mr. Baratta to testify that he never gave Mr. Martin settlement authority, while at the same time disallowing Defendant to inquire into the subject matter of his and his litigation attorney's exchanges…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farnsworth v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Salter v. The Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Rubio v. Algo Cap., LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641 (S.D. Fla. 2024)