Webb v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
283 F.R.D. 276
D. Maryland2012Background
- Plaintiff Sandy N. Webb seeks a protective order to allow her deposition by telephone from Oregon.
- Webb has already traveled to Maryland on two occasions for discovery-related matters and asserts further travel is burdensome.
- Defendants oppose telephonic deposition, arguing no good cause and that Webb chose Maryland as the forum, requiring in-person appearance.
- Court analyzes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); burden on movant to show particularized good cause and not rely on conclusory statements.
- Court finds Webb failed to show good cause and that travel to the forum is not unduly burdensome in light of her chosen forum.
- Even if good cause existed, telephonic deposition would prejudice defendants due to voluminous documents and inability to observe demeanor; however the court still denies the protective order and requires deposition in Maryland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Webb established good cause for a remote deposition | Webb argues substantial travel burden and cost justify remote deposition | No good cause; forum is Maryland; burden must be demonstrated with specifics | No good cause shown; remote deposition not warranted |
| Whether telephonic deposition would prejudice the defendants | Not applicable beyond burden arguments | Voluminous documents and inability to observe demeanor would impair defense | Telephonic deposition would prejudice defendants; not appropriate |
| Whether Webb's forum choice supports requiring in-person deposition in Maryland | Forum selection should reduce travel burden; deposition could occur remotely | Plaintiff selected Maryland and must appear there absent good cause | Plaintiff failed to show hardship; nonetheless telephonic deposition denied for other reasons; must appear in Maryland |
Key Cases Cited
- Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 258 F.R.D. 118 (D. Md. 2009) (good cause for protective orders requires particularized facts)
- Ayers v. Continental Cas. Co., 240 F.R.D. 216 (N.D. W. Va. 2007) (high hurdle for good cause; conclusory statements insufficient)
- Natanzon v. Bar, 240 F.R.D. 202 (D. Md. 2006) (stereotyped, conclusory statements do not establish good cause)
- de Dalmady v. Price Waterhouse & Co., 62 F.R.D. 157 (D.P.R. 1973) (requires particularized showing for protective orders)
- Shockey v. Huhtamaki, Inc., 280 F.R.D. 598 (D. Kan. 2012) (forum and burden considerations in deposition requests)
- Cressler v. Neuenschwander, 170 F.R.D. 20 (D. Kan. 1996) (volume of documents can preclude telephonic deposition)
- Jahr v. IU Intern. Corp., 109 F.R.D. 429 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (prejudice standard for remote deposition relies on specific showing)
- In re Outsidewall Tire Litig., 267 F.R.D. 466 (E.D. Va. 2010) (travel feasibility can affect deposition location considerations)