UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, et al.,Plaintiffs,v. Case No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBMCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, et al.,Defendants. / O R D E R
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’
Motion for Leave to TakeDeposition of Witness Brian Culkin
(Doc. 53), and Plaintiffs’ response in opposition (Docs.56, 65). By their Motion, Defendants seek to take the deposition
de bene esse
of Brian
1
Culkin in anticipation of the Court’s hearing on Defendant’s motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’counsel on October 3, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs do not oppose the deposition, but theycontest certain representations by Defendants and disagree on the Defendants’ proposedrestrictions on the conduct of the same. A telephone hearing was held on August 12, 2013. Counsel for the parties, as well as Mr. Culkin and his attorney, Ray Jeffrey, participated in theconversation. Plaintiffs’ “objection” (Doc. 56) was responded to by Defendants’ Opposition (Doc.
1
58). Both were previously terminated. Counsel are reminded that Local Rule 3.01 anticipatesthat there be a “motion,” and, if the motion is opposed, a “response.” Further, under LocalRule 3.01(c), “[n]o party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed to [a] motion or response . . . unless the Court grants leave.”
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 68 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1607
Upon consideration, on Defendants’
Motion for Leave to Take Deposition foWitness Brian Culkin
(Doc. 53) is
DENIED.
As discussed at the hearing, Mr. Culkin willvoluntarily appear and respond to questions by the Court and by counsel. The parties haveagreed to share the cost of his transportation and a reasonable per diem. Given the current posture of the litigation and in light of Mr. Culkin’s willingness to voluntarily appear, theCourt denies any request for a pre-hearing deposition. However, as suggested at the hearing,Mr. Culkin may be in possession of certain e-mail communications that are potentially pertinent to the issues to be addressed at the upcoming hearing. While Mr. Culkin believesthat all such emails were deleted after his settlement and his counsel, Mr. Jeffrey, asserts thatthere may be claims of privilege related to such e-mails, Mr. Culkin will make a search to seeif any such e-mails exist and may be produced. The Court has requested counsel to confer andif agreement can be reached on production of such non-privileged matters as they may exist,arrangements for production should be made consistent with the Court’s Order directing theexchange of witness and exhibit lists and the submitting of courtesy copies to chambers prior to the October 2013 hearing.
Done and Ordered
in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of August 2013. Copies furnished to:Counsel of Record 2
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 68 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1608
