From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duran v. M.R.R. Land Equity, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
Jul 18, 1986
112 F.R.D. 648 (M.D. Fla. 1986)

Summary

following Clem without discussion

Summary of this case from Clinton v. California Department of Corrections

Opinion

         Motion for telephone depositions was filed on behalf of plaintiffs. The District Court, Paul Game, Jr., United States Magistrate, held that plaintiffs showed good cause for entry of limited protective order to extent that defendants could depose plaintiffs as scheduled either telephonically or in person in Middle District of Florida at defendant's expense.

         Ordered accordingly.

          Tillie Lacayo and Daniel R. Aidif of Florida Rural Legal Services, Bartow, Fla., for plaintiffs.

          Tony de los Santos, pro se.

          Robert N. Spencer, IV, Sarasota, Fla., for defendants, M.R.R. Land Equity, Inc., and Marcus Raye, Jr.


         ORDER

          PAUL GAME, Jr., United States Magistrate.

         Before the Court is a Motion for Telephone Depositions filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Alejo Reyna, Hortensia Reyna, Guadalupe Sanchez, Juan Jose Moreno and Nellie Moreno. Because the Plaintiffs are seeking to restrict the means by which their depositions are to be taken, as opposed to seeking leave of court to themselves take Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(7) depositions, their motion is in reality a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) motion for protective order. Since it appears that Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with opposing counsel in accordance with Local Rule 3.04(a) prior to filing the motion it is, nonetheless, appropriate for the Court to consider the motion on its merits.

         Having studied the motion and supporting affidavits, as well as the response thereto, and being otherwise fully advised, it is the finding of the undersigned that the Plaintiff has shown good cause for the entry of a limited protective order. Accordingly, it is, upon consideration

         ORDERED as follows:

         1. That the Plaintiffs' Motion for Telephone Depositions (doc. 42) be, and the same is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the Defendants may depose the Plaintiffs as scheduled on July 17 and 18, 1986 either telephonically or in person in the Middle District of Florida at the Defendants' expense.

         2. That should the Defendants choose to depose the Plaintiffs telephonically or not at all on July 17 and 18, 1986 the Plaintiffs shall make themselves available for depositions in the Middle District of Florida at a time to be agreed upon between the parties during the week prior to trial.


Summaries of

Duran v. M.R.R. Land Equity, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
Jul 18, 1986
112 F.R.D. 648 (M.D. Fla. 1986)

following Clem without discussion

Summary of this case from Clinton v. California Department of Corrections
Case details for

Duran v. M.R.R. Land Equity, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Jose Miguel DURAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. M.R.R. LAND EQUITY, INC., a…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Date published: Jul 18, 1986

Citations

112 F.R.D. 648 (M.D. Fla. 1986)

Citing Cases

Exxon Inc.

In light of the more recent availability of telephone depositions, it is also within a court's discretion to…

Clinton v. California Department of Corrections

Rehau, Inc. v. Colortech, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 444, 446 (W.D. Mich. 1993) (in the context of plaintiff-deponents,…