Opinion
1:21-cv-00106-ADA-SAB
04-11-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE A. HOWEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ENTERING PROTECTIVE ORDER FOLLOWING INFORMAL DISCOVERY HEARING (ECF NOS. 39, 40, 41)
On April 7, 2023, the Court held an informal discovery dispute hearing to discuss the matters contained in the parties' joint informal discovery dispute letter brief. (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 41.) Pursuant to the matters discussed at the informal hearing, the Court informed the parties it was inclined to find good cause to grant Plaintiff's request for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), to the extent Defendants' notice of deposition sought discovery of material that is protected by the work-product doctrine, attorney-client privilege or would constitute premature expert discovery. The Court advised the parties of its tentative ruling granting the protective order, with limitations, and directed the parties to submit a proposed order by April 11, 2023. On April 11, 2023, the parties submitted a proposed protective order to the Court. Based on the Court's review of the proposed order, the Court finds good cause to enter the parties' proposed protective order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a protective order limiting the scope of Defendants' Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics is GRANTED, and Defendant is barred from questioning Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deponents to the extent:
1. Questioning seeks testimony that would necessitate the disclosure of protected work product;
2. Questioning seeks testimony regarding how the government evaluates particular facts to support or refute the Complaint's allegations;
3. Questioning seeks testimony regarding how the government plans to marshal the facts;
4. Questioning seeks testimony regarding the inferences the government believes can be drawn from the evidence it has accumulated;
5. Questioning seeks testimony regarding how the government interprets and applies the law and government policies to the facts of the case;
6. Questioning seeks expert witness testimony;
7. Questioning seeks opinions as to how the Defendants acted outside of the course of professional pharmacy or pharmacist practices; and
8. Questioning seeks opinions as to what the Defendants should have done when confronted by “red flags.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.