EPSILANTIS
v.
SCOZZARI ROOF SERVICES CONTRACTING & CONSULTING, 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 held that a plaintiff seeking a protective order to avoid a deposition must demonstrate a particularized need, not mere inconvenience.
Plaintiff sought a protective order to have his deposition taken in St. Lucie County instead of Fort Lauderdale, citing inconvenience. Defendants obje…
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
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 37) THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”). DE 37. Defendants filed a Response to the Motion. DE 38. Having reviewed the briefing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns Plaintiff’s claim for minimum and overtime wages under federal and state law pursuant to his employment with the corporate Defendant in this case. See generally DE 27. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on August 5, 2021. Id. The parties have been engaging in discovery.
On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking relief from travel to Fort Lauderdale, Florida for his deposition. DE 37 at 5. Rather, Plaintiff requests the Court to order that his November 8, 2021 deposition shall take place in St. Lucie County.1 Id. Defendant objects to taking Plaintiff’s deposition in St. Lucie County for varied reasons including
LEGAL STANDARDS
“The Federal Rules state that before a protective order may issue, the movant must show good cause why justice requires an order to protect a party or person from ‘annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.’” Trinos v. Quality Staffing Servs. Corp., 250 F.R.D. 696, 698 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)). “To make a showing of good cause, the movant has the burden of showing the injury ‘with specificity.’” Id. (citing Pearson v. Miller, 211 F. 3d 57, 72 (3d Cir.2000)). “In other words, the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection.” Id. (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F. 2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir.1986)).
DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff fails to show a particularized need for protection. Although, as Plaintiff
avers, the “[p]arties all reside in Indian River County,” Plaintiff does not say more as to why he cannot commute to defense counsel’s offices in Fort Lauderdale for the deposition. DE 37 at 4. Indeed, Plaintiff even acknowledges that “[d]uring conferral efforts Defendants voiced their opposition to the deposition being taken in St. Lucie County because Mr. Scozzari’s deposition and mediation had already occurred in their Fort Lauderdale law office.” Id. at 3. “Rule 26(c) protects those deposed from ‘annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense’, but not from mere inconvenience.” Falic v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., No. 03-80377-CIV, 2004 WL 5483681, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2004) (emphasis added).
Because Plaintiff explains no more than inconvenience at having to drive to Ft. Lauderdale, I find that Plaintiff has not established good cause for his requested relief.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (DE 37) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 29th day of September, 2021.
Seana SHANIEK M.MAYNARD sit”