You are on page 1of 3

Case 1:12-cv-23300-UU Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3


PATRICE BAKER, an individual and LAURENT LAMOTHE, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. LEO JOSEPH, Defendant. ____________________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Laurent Lamothes (Lamothe) Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 72] and Defendants Motion to Compel Deposition and for Sanctions [D.E. 73]. Based on our review of the parties filings, Defendants Motion to Compel will be treated as a response to Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order; thus, the motions for are ripe for disposition. The Court has reviewed the motions, the record, and is fully advised in the premises. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. On July 8, 2013, Defendant served a notice of taking video deposition of

Lamothe, which deposition was scheduled for August 13, 2013. On August 6, 2013, Defendant served a renotice of taking video deposition, rescheduling Lamothes deposition to take place on August 16, 2013. Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1, Lamothe had until August 12, 2013 to file a motion for protective order relating to the deposition.

Case 1:12-cv-23300-UU Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 3


At approximately 2:45 p.m. on August 15, 2013the day before Lamothes

depositionLamothes counsel informed Defendants counsel that Lamothe would not appear for his deposition if it was going to be videotaped. [D.E. 73 at pp.1-2]. Lamothe ultimately did not appear for the deposition. [Id. at p.1]. Later that day, Lamothe filed his Motion for Protective Order seeking, among other things, the entry of an order of protection that bars the videotaping or audio recording of Lamothes deposition. [D.E. 72 at p.1]. 3. Lamothes Motion for Protective Order is untimely under Local Rule

26.1(h) because it was filed after the 30-day window within which he was permitted to object to Defendants notices of deposition. See Local Rule 26.1(h) (All motions related to discovery, including but not limited to motions to compel discovery and motions for protective order, shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of grounds for the motion. Failure to file a discovery motion within thirty (30) days, absent a showing of reasonable cause for a later filing, may constitute a waiver of the relief sought.). 4. A party is entitled to take depositions by any method it desiresincluding

by videotapeso long as the notice of deposition is in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(3)(A). And, absent a timely objection to a notice a taking deposition and a showing of good cause, the deposition can proceed however it is noticed. On this record, Lamothe has waived his right to object to Defendants decision to videotape Lamothes deposition. Thus, Lamothes Motion for Protective Order is DENIED in part to the extent that it may be videotaped. However, no portion of the video or audio recording from the deposition may be used outside of this litigation for any purpose absent prior

Case 1:12-cv-23300-UU Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 3

Court Order. Lamothes Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED in part on this limited basis. 5. Defendants Motion to Compel is GRANTED as set forth herein.

Lamothe shall: (1) appear for deposition on August 20, 2013; (2) pay the costs of the court reporters appearance in connection with the August 16, 2013 deposition for which he failed to appear; and (3) bring with him to the August 20, 2013 deposition the check for the costs incurred for the court reporters appearance. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of August, 2013. /s/ Edwin G. Torres EDWIN G. TORRES United States Magistrate Judge