Freye v. Target Corporation

W.D. Washington

Freye v. Target Corporation

DecidedDecember 16, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-05449

StatusUnknown

This text of Freye v. Target Corporation (Freye v. Target Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freye v. Target Corporation, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 STACIE FREYE, CASE NO. C19-5449 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 TARGET CORPORATION, 11 Defendant. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stacie Freye’s (“Freye”) motion 14 for a protective order. Dkt. 13. 15 On April 17, 2019, Freye filed a complaint against Defendant Target Corporation 16 (“Target”) in Thurston County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-1. 17 Freye seeks damages for injuries sustained from a fall in a Target store in Lacey, 18 Washington. Id. 19 On November 1, 2019, Target served a notice of deposition on Freye’s attorney 20 requesting a deposition in Washington. Dkt. 13 at 1. On November 20, 2019, Freye filed 21 the instant motion requesting that the Court either quash the notice or order that the 22 1 deposition occur in Costa Mesa, California where Freye currently resides. Id. On 2 November 27, 2019, Target responded. Dkt. 16. Freye did not reply.

3 “‘As a normal rule plaintiff will be required to make [herself] available for 4 examination in the district in which [she] has brought suit’, and costs are not allowable 5 absent ‘good cause.’” Detweiler Bros., Inc. v. John Graham & Co., 412 F. Supp. 416, 6 422 (E.D. Wash. 1976) (quoting 8 Wright and Miller, § 2112 at 404–06)). 7 In this case, Freye has filed suit in this district and has failed to establish 8 significant hardship to quash the request to appear for a deposition in this district.

9 Therefore, the Court DENIES Freye’s motion for a protective order. 10 In its response, Target requests an order requiring Freye to attend both the 11 deposition and a medical examination in Washington on mutually convenient dates. Dkt. 12 16 at 4–5. The Court rejects this request as being improperly presented in a response. 13 However, the Court expects the parties to work together to coordinate the deposition and

14 exam as to minimize Freye’s time in Washington and hardship she will experience by 15 being required to appear in this district. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated this 16th day of December, 2019. A 18 19 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 20 United States District Judge

21 22

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

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 STACIE FREYE, CASE NO. C19-5449 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 TARGET CORPORATION, 11 Defendant. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stacie Freye’s (“Freye”) motion 14 for a protective order. Dkt. 13. 15 On April 17, 2019, Freye filed a complaint against Defendant Target Corporation 16 (“Target”) in Thurston County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-1. 17 Freye seeks damages for injuries sustained from a fall in a Target store in Lacey, 18 Washington. Id. 19 On November 1, 2019, Target served a notice of deposition on Freye’s attorney 20 requesting a deposition in Washington. Dkt. 13 at 1. On November 20, 2019, Freye filed 21 the instant motion requesting that the Court either quash the notice or order that the 22 1 deposition occur in Costa Mesa, California where Freye currently resides. Id. On 2 November 27, 2019, Target responded. Dkt. 16. Freye did not reply.

3 “‘As a normal rule plaintiff will be required to make [herself] available for 4 examination in the district in which [she] has brought suit’, and costs are not allowable 5 absent ‘good cause.’” Detweiler Bros., Inc. v. John Graham & Co., 412 F. Supp. 416, 6 422 (E.D. Wash. 1976) (quoting 8 Wright and Miller, § 2112 at 404–06)). 7 In this case, Freye has filed suit in this district and has failed to establish 8 significant hardship to quash the request to appear for a deposition in this district.

9 Therefore, the Court DENIES Freye’s motion for a protective order. 10 In its response, Target requests an order requiring Freye to attend both the 11 deposition and a medical examination in Washington on mutually convenient dates. Dkt. 12 16 at 4–5. The Court rejects this request as being improperly presented in a response. 13 However, the Court expects the parties to work together to coordinate the deposition and

14 exam as to minimize Freye’s time in Washington and hardship she will experience by 15 being required to appear in this district. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated this 16th day of December, 2019. A 18 19 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 20 United States District Judge

21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Freye v. Target Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freye-v-target-corporation-wawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack