Chrastecky v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

W.D. Texas

Chrastecky v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

DecidedMarch 10, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-01240

StatusUnknown

This text of Chrastecky v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (Chrastecky v. C. R. Bard, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chrastecky v. C. R. Bard, Inc., (W.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

DONNA CHRASTECKY AND § MICHAEL CHRASTECKY, § Plaintiffs § § Case No. A-19-CV-1240-LY-SH v. § § C. R. BARD, INC., § Defendant

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection, filed on March 9, 2021 (Dkt. 131). On January 22, 2020, the District Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. This case is set for jury selection and trial before the District Court in May 2021. Defendant deposed Plaintiffs in April 2017. Dkt. 15; Dkt. 16. On February 26, 2021, Defendant noticed a second deposition of both Plaintiffs for March 12, 2021. Dkt. 131-2; Dkt. 131-3. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a protective order, arguing that deposing them again at this late stage of the litigation would be unnecessary, harassing, unduly burdensome, and duplicative. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides that “[a] party must obtain leave of court . . . if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and . . . the deponent has already been deposed in the case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii); see also Gates v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. A-09-CV-018 LY, 2010 WL 11598033, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2010) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires leave of court to depose a person who has already been deposed in the case.”). Plaintiffs have not stipulated to the depositions, and Defendant has not sought leave of court to re-depose them, as required by Rule 30. See United States ex rel. Woodard v. Davita, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-227, 2011 WL 13199233, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2011) (noting that party “should request leave before noticing any such deposition”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection (Dkt. 131) is GRANTED. The Court HEREBY QUASHES the Defendant’s second deposition notices of Plaintiffs (Dkt. 131-2; Dkt. 131-3). SIGNED on March 10, 2021.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

DONNA CHRASTECKY AND § MICHAEL CHRASTECKY, § Plaintiffs § § Case No. A-19-CV-1240-LY-SH v. § § C. R. BARD, INC., § Defendant

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection, filed on March 9, 2021 (Dkt. 131). On January 22, 2020, the District Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. This case is set for jury selection and trial before the District Court in May 2021. Defendant deposed Plaintiffs in April 2017. Dkt. 15; Dkt. 16. On February 26, 2021, Defendant noticed a second deposition of both Plaintiffs for March 12, 2021. Dkt. 131-2; Dkt. 131-3. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a protective order, arguing that deposing them again at this late stage of the litigation would be unnecessary, harassing, unduly burdensome, and duplicative. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides that “[a] party must obtain leave of court . . . if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and . . . the deponent has already been deposed in the case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii); see also Gates v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. A-09-CV-018 LY, 2010 WL 11598033, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2010) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires leave of court to depose a person who has already been deposed in the case.”). Plaintiffs have not stipulated to the depositions, and Defendant has not sought leave of court to re-depose them, as required by Rule 30. See United States ex rel. Woodard v. Davita, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-227, 2011 WL 13199233, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2011) (noting that party “should request leave before noticing any such deposition”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protection (Dkt. 131) is GRANTED. The Court HEREBY QUASHES the Defendant’s second deposition notices of Plaintiffs (Dkt. 131-2; Dkt. 131-3). SIGNED on March 10, 2021.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chrastecky v. C. R. Bard, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrastecky-v-c-r-bard-inc-txwd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack