Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 1:12-cv-00800

Pueblo of Jemez sued the United States (Quiet Title Act and state common law) to quiet aboriginal title to the Valles Caldera National Preserve; New Mexico Gas Company intervened concerning a pipeline easement.
The United States sought to take a deposition by written questions of the nonparty Pueblo of Zia under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31; it previously took a similar deposition of Pueblo of Santa Clara by written questions.
At the Santa Clara written-question deposition, only the deponent’s counsel and the deposition officer were physically present; Jemez’s counsel contended the deponent’s attorney improperly interjected.
The United States moved for a protective order to prohibit in-person attendance by parties and counsel at the upcoming Pueblo of Zia written-question deposition; Jemez opposed and also moved to strike the Santa Clara transcript attached to the motion.
The magistrate judge analyzed Rule 31’s purpose and practice, found written-question depositions are typically conducted without party attendance (and, if allowed, participants may not interject), and concluded that denying attendance aligns with Rule 31’s design.
The court granted the protective order precluding party/counsel attendance at the Pueblo of Zia deposition and denied Jemez’s motion to strike the Santa Clara transcript (because transcripts are not pleadings and the attachment was permissible).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parties/counsel may attend a deposition by written questions under Rule 31	Jemez: counsel has a right to attend and monitor the deposition; prior problems justify attendance	U.S.: Rule 31 contemplates only the officer and deponent; parties typically are not present and cannot interject	Court: Granted protective order — parties/counsel may not attend the Pueblo of Zia written‑question deposition
Whether the Santa Clara deposition transcript attached to the motion should be struck	Jemez: transcript was improperly "filed" and should be stricken under Rule 12(f) and Rule 5(d)(1)	U.S.: Transcript was attached to a motion as supporting evidence, not filed as a proceeding record; Rule 12(f) targets pleadings	Court: Denied motion to strike — transcript is not a pleading and attachment/citation was permissible

S.E.C. v. Merrill Scott & Associates, Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion over discovery rulings)
Rohrbough v. Harris, 549 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.) (Rule 26(c) good‑cause standard is flexible and accommodates competing interests)
Daye v. Community Fin. Serv. Centers, LLC, 233 F. Supp. 3d 946 (D.N.M.) (Rule 12(f) motions to strike are disfavored and generally apply only to pleadings)