IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
v.
POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF No. 129] Defendant National Molding, LLC, moves for a protective order limiting the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of its corporate representative. ECF No.
129. I have reviewed the Motion, the Response, and the Reply. The motion is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
“In situations where a particular [Rule 30(b)(6)] noticed topic is alleged to be outside the scope of Rule 26 discovery . . . the remedy . . . does not involve this Court preemptively reviewing arguments on relevance or overbreadth.” Balu v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., No. 11-60031-CIV, 2011 WL 3359681, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2011) (J. Torres) (emphasis in original) (noting that “the Rule is intended to be selfexecuting and must operate extrajudicially”) (quoting New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 1068124, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Apr.6, 2007)).
Rather than the court intervening prior to the scheduled deposition, “the better procedure to follow” is for a corporate deponent to object to a topic as the questions are being posed, and for the opposing party to move to compel additional answers, if necessary, after the deposition. Balu, 2011 WL 3359681, at *4. This procedure “will give the Court a factual record with which to judge whether a particular topic or question asked should be compelled or not.” Id. So, if National Molding believes that a particular topic listed in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice is improper, it need not prepare a witness to testify on that topic. And, during the deposition, it can object to a particular question and instruct the witness not to answer on relevance grounds. Both parties proceed at their own risk, however. If the Court later overrules the objection and compels an answer to the question(s), the Court may charge National Molding with fees and costs for reconvening the deposition. Alternatively, if the objection is sustained, the Court may charge Plaintiff for the fees and costs National Molding incurred in preparing a witness on an improper topic.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, this 27th day of October 2022.
BRUCE E. REINHART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iqris Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters., Inc., 2011 WL 3359681 (S.D. Fla. 2022)…., No. 11-60031-CIV, 2011 WL 3359681, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2011) (J. Torres) (emphasis in original) (noting that “the Rule is intended to be self- executing and must operate extrajudicially”) (quoting New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 1068124, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Apr.6, 2007)). Rather than the court intervening prior to the scheduled deposition, “the better procedure to follow” is for a corporate deponent to object to a topic as the questions are being posed, and for the opposing…1 / 3
-
Byron v. Avant Healthcare Prof'ls, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024)…ent 106 Filed 11/18/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID 1233 conclusory or speculative statements about the need for a protective order and the harm which will be suffered without one." Id. (quoting New World Network Ltd. v. M/V NORWEGIAN SEA, No. 05-22916 CIV, 2007 WL 1068124, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007)). Upon consideration, the Court finds unpersuasive Aya's argument that all documents sought by the subpoena would be irrelevant in this litigation. In particular, and as Defendant argues and Plaintiffs do not dispute…
-
Hannah v. Armor Corr. Health Servs., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020)…ion of facts in support of the request, rather than conclusory or speculative statements about the need for a protective order and the harm which will be suffered without one.” New World Network, Ltd. v. M/V. Norwegian Sea, No. 05-22916-CIV, 2007 WL 1068124, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007). In determining whether the moving party has established good cause for a protective order, the court balances the interests of the parties. Id. Good cause represents the “sole criterion” for assessing the propr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Iqris Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters., Inc., 2011 WL 3359681 (S.D. Fla. 2022)