Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Preferred Commerce, Inc.

Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Preferred Commerce, Inc.

Opinion

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [DE 30] filed on January 7, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel [DE 34] concerning the same topic on January 8, 2008. This Court entered an Order [DE 36] construing the Motion to Compel as a response to the Motion for Protective Order on January 9, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Motion to reconsider this decision [DE 38] on January 13, 2008. This Court denied that Motion [DE 41] on January 17, 2008 but did grant Plaintiff leave to file a surreply. Defendant replied [DE 40] on January 16, 2008. Plaintiff filed its surreply [DE 42 [*2] on January 22, 2008. This motion is now ripe for adjudication.

Defendant seeks a protective order to prevent any further deposition of Mr. Michael Ferraro, Defendant's president. Plaintiff has deposed Mr. Ferraro twice in his individual capacity.¹ After both of those depositions, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice. Defendant named Mr. Ferraro as its corporate representative for deposition purposes and refused to submit to another deposition on the following grounds: (1) Mr. Ferraro has already been deposed, in his individual capacity twice, (2) that his testimony will be repetitive and that the prior two depositions could serve as Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) testimony, (3) that since defense counsel must travel from Washington D.C. to participate in depositions, the cost of attending this additional deposition is burdensome and (4) that Plaintiff should have been more courteous when planning its deposition schedules to accommodate defense counsel's travel expenses and grouped Mr. Ferraro's Rule 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) depositions together. Defendant raises all four of those objections in the instant motion.

Timeliness

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.