Shockey v. Huhtamaki, Inc.
280 F.R.D. 598
D. Kan.2012Background
- Plaintiffs move for protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1) to govern location of seven out-of-state opt-in depositions in a FLSA collective action.
- Defendant seeks to depose opt-ins in Kansas City, with all seven deponents residing in Michigan, New York, Indiana, Arizona, California, and Maine.
- Historically, class/collective actions permit travel costs to be borne by the propounding party, but the remedial nature of the FLSA and proportionality considerations are at issue.
- The case proceeded in the District of Kansas; prior depositions included a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant and six opt-in plaintiffs who traveled to Kansas City (two exceptions due to medical conditions).
- Plaintiffs request the depositions occur where the opt-ins reside, or telephonically/videoconferenced, or at least that Defendant pay travel costs.
- The court ultimately grants the protective order, allowing videoconference depositions with Plaintiffs bearing videoconferencing costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether out-of-state opt-ins may be deposed by videoconference | Shockey argues travel costs are burdensome; videoconference minimizes costs. | Gipson/Clayton rule requires deposition in forum; travel costs are reasonable. | Yes; depositions may be taken by videoconference. |
| Applicable standard for protective orders under Rule 26(c) in this context | Good cause due to cost burden and remedial nature of FLSA. | Only extreme hardship warranted; general burdens are insufficient. | Good cause found; protective order granted. |
| Allocation of costs for videoconferencing | Defendant should bear travel-related costs or cover videoconference costs. | Costs should be borne by the party requesting protection; travel costs not owed by Defendant. | Plaintiffs to bear videoconferencing costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (protective orders and relevance of discovery process)
- Bryan v. Eichenwald, 191 F.R.D. 650 (D. Kan. 2000) (protective orders and discovery scope in district court)
- MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 497 (D. Kan. 2007) (proportionality and protective orders in discovery)