2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62112
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- PLM and Prolacto dispute trademark rights for paletas; Prolacto seeks deposition of its corporate designees; PLM notices location in Washington, D.C. but is amenable to a US location; Prolacto demands Mexico City deposition or reimbursement of travel costs; court analyzes protective-order standards and deposition-location factors; court denies the protective-order request and locates deposition in the United States, with Southern California as practical locus, and grants sealing while addressing evidence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deposition location should be Mexico City or the United States | PLM preferred US location; Prolacto advocated Mexico City | Prolacto argued Mexico City minimizes burden on its witnesses; US location increases burden | US location favored; Southern California suggested as practical site |
| Whether Prolacto bears travel costs for US deposition | Prolacto bears its own costs; costs should not be shifted to PLM | Prolacto seeks reimbursement as a burden-shifting measure | Motion for expense reimbursement denied |
| Whether to seal portions of the reply and related declarations | N/A | Yes, due to sensitive financial data | Seal granted; non-dispositive-motion-confer requirement noted for future filings |
| Whether PLM’s objections to evidence in reply remain viable | Objections should be considered; new reply data should be evaluated | Evidence in reply not properly before the court; unnecessary to resolve | Overruled as moot; court disposes of motion without relying on the reply evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 277 F.R.D. 205 (D.D.C. 2011) (location and discovery-deposition considerations; foreign parties factors)
- Fin. Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Lance, 80 F.R.D. 22 (D.D.C. 1978) (court’s supervisory authority over depositions; forum-location relevance)
- Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 43 (D.D.C. 2003) (debates about forum and deposition premises for named representatives)
- Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Tomlin, 102 F.R.D. 93 (M.D. Tenn. 1984) (plaintiff’s forum selection and deposition obligations)
- McKesson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 185 F.R.D. 70 (D.D.C. 1999) (sovereignty and foreign-deposition considerations)