276 F.R.D. 402
D. Mass.2011Background
- ClearOne seeks to enforce a Utah judgment against Chiang and Yang, who own property in Massachusetts, with joint and several liability totaling $1,912,000 and exemplary damages of $637,322 each.
- The parties are in discovery disputes over deposition of Yang and his wife Dili Zhang, with ClearOne proposing depositions Oct 31, 2011.
- Yang moved for a protective order prior to those depositions, arguing harassment, language barriers, and prior alleged discovery abuses.
- ClearOne contends a second deposition is needed to obtain Yang’s current ability to pay and his and co-defendants’ post-appeal payment intentions; his prior affidavit is deemed inadequate.
- The court denies Yang’s protective order, allowing a second deposition of Yang (not to exceed one day) and permitting Zhang’s deposition if Yang discloses full financial information; depositions must occur by Nov 22, 2011, with travel costs allocated if necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yang’s protective order should be denied | Yang’s protections should yield to full asset discovery under Rule 69(a)(2). | Deposition is harassing and unnecessary; prior deposition suffices and there are language and due process concerns. | Denied; Full financial discovery allowed. |
| Whether ClearOne may depose Yang again to uncover current assets and payment plans | Second deposition necessary to reveal current ability to pay and post-appeal plans. | One prior deposition plus affidavit should suffice; risk of harassment and irrelevance absent new information. | Allowed; second deposition permitted up to one day. |
| Whether Zhang can be compelled to appear for deposition | Zhang’s deposition is necessary to uncover joint assets and income. | Zhang should not be deposed unless Yang’s full disclosure necessitates it. | Partially granted; Zhang to appear unless Yang fully discloses joint assets, in which case Zhang’s deposition may be suspended. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pub. Citizens v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775 (1st Cir. 1988) (protective orders; broad discretion to protect from undue burden in discovery)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court 1984) (broad scope of discovery; balancing need for privacy and information)