Hill v. Forward Air Solutions, Inc, 3:10-cv-00665

Civil action: Hill v. Forward Air Solutions, Inc., in Western District of North Carolina; removal from Mecklenburg County Superior Court to federal court; plaintiff alleges age discrimination under the ADEA and wrongful termination; defendant moves to compel and for protective order regarding deposition sequencing; pretrial order requires good faith attempts to resolve discovery disputes; court must decide order of depositions after notices and objections; magistrate grants motion, orders Hill’s deposition first and plaintiff’s depositions follow
Plaintiff filed complaint in state court on Nov. 23, 2010, later removed to federal court on Dec. 27, 2010
On Jan. 19-25, 2011, defendant served deposition notices asserting it would depose Hill first; plaintiff objected to early discovery and preferred depositions of defendant’s representatives first
CIAC filed Jan. 20, 2011, but no dispute over sequencing in that filing; pretrial order emphasizes discovery cooperation
Court cites Rule 26(d) and discretion to determine deposition sequence; judge concludes defendant’s motion should be granted and Hill’s deposition should occur first
Conclusion: Defendant’s motion granted; parties to schedule Hill’s deposition first then pursue plaintiff’s depositions

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who may conduct first deposition in the case	Hill sought to delay his deposition until after defendant's reps	Defendant should depose Hill first as per notices	Defendant’s motion granted; Hill’s deposition first

Keller v. Edwards, 206 F.R.D. 412 (D. Md. 2002) (court may order discovery sequencing under Rule 26(d))
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (Rule 26 grants broad discretion to tailor discovery and sequence)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 26 discretion over discovery devices and their deployment)