Cook v. Advon Corporation
3:24-cv-00656
| E.D. Va. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Kevin Cook and Cabell Goodman sued Advon Corporation, a Florida corporation, in Virginia state court; Advon removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship.
- Plaintiffs scheduled in-person depositions of two of Advon's employees, President William Graham and Controller Debbie Caruthers, at plaintiff’s counsel’s office in Richmond, Virginia.
- Both Graham (68) and Caruthers (61) submitted evidence of significant health problems limiting their ability to travel, including recent hospitalization and surgery, making travel to Virginia difficult.
- Advon moved for a protective order requesting that depositions take place at Advon's headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida, or remotely under Federal Rule 30(b)(4).
- Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing local rules, arguing depositions must occur in the division where the case is pending and that Advon should be required to travel.
- The court examined both local and federal rules regarding the location of depositions and considered the movants' health conditions as well as procedural history regarding removal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has diversity jurisdiction given Advon's business activity in Virginia | Advon's VA filings suggest principal place of business is VA | Advon's nerve center is in FL, not VA | Court presumes FL is principal place of business; jurisdiction proper |
| Whether depositions must occur in the division where the action is pending | Local Rule 30(A) requires depositions in Richmond | Local Rule doesn't apply when case removed; even if it does, health is exception | Rule likely doesn't apply; health conditions justify exception |
| Whether good cause exists for depositions in Florida or by remote means | No, prefer in-person in Richmond; remote causes prejudice | Health/disability prevents travel; remote/flexible necessary | Health conditions are good cause; remote/Florida depositions allowed |
| Whether technical/cost issues justify requiring travel | Remote would cause technical and cost difficulties | Costs/technical issues no greater than travel issues posed by in-person | Not sufficient prejudice to outweigh deponents’ health limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (principal place of business is where high-level officers direct and control corporate activities)
- Cent. W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101 (4th Cir. 2011) (clarifies application of "nerve center" test for corporate citizenship)
- In re Outsidewall Tire Litig., 267 F.R.D. 466 (E.D. Va. 2010) (resident defendants typically subjected to depositions in forum; non-resident defendants generally deposed near residence)