Opinion
CV-21-01236-PHX-SMB
01-20-2023
Millard Charles Finch, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Transworld Systems Incorporated, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Susan M. Brnovich, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition for both Millard Charles Finch Jr. and Samantha Finch. (Doc. 82.) Defendant Transworld Systems Incorporated (“TSI”) filed a Response (Doc. 85), and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (87). After reviewing the pleadings and relevant law, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash.
This case involves allegations that TSI improperly received money from Mr. Finch's retired military pay account. (Doc. 67 at 2.) In March 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order that directed in part that discovery would conclude on November 18, 2022. (Doc. 39.) On November 1, 2022, TSI filed two notices of deposition seeking to depose both Mr. and Mrs. Finch. (Docs. 78 at 1; 79 at 1.) The notices requested to depose Plaintiffs on November 18, 2022. (See id.) On November 17, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Quash TSI's Notices of Deposition. (Doc. 82.)
Plaintiffs cite Rule 30(d)(3) in their effort to quash the Notices of Deposition. (Doc. 82 at 1.) Plaintiffs raise many arguments to support that effort. (See id. at 2-15.) Rule 30(d) covers the duration of oral depositions, sanctions, and motions to terminate or limit oral depositions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d). “At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added). Rule 30 does not contemplate quashing a notice of deposition. However, Rule 45 addresses quashing a subpoena, which may command a person to attend and testify at a deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)-(b), (d).
No subpoena has been issued in this case. As such, Plaintiffs' arguments to “quash” TSI's Notices of Deposition are inapplicable and the relief they seek is unavailable. Rule 30(a) permits TSI to depose Mr. and Mrs. Finch, as parties to the case. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. 82) and order Plaintiffs to participate in depositions as outlined in TSI's Notices (see Docs. 78; 79).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition. (Doc. 82.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Millard Charles Finch Jr. and Samantha Finch shall sit for oral depositions as outlined in TSI's Notices of Deposition, and produce any relevant documents requested therein. (See Docs. 78; 79.) The parties shall schedule the depositions on a date of mutual convenience, but no later than February 3, 2023.