Qwinstar Corporation v. Anthony

Background

The court reviewed Defendants’ objection to Magistrate Judge Becky Thorson’s order denying their motion for a protective order. The dispute concerned the scheduling and manner of Defendant Curtis Anthony’s deposition.

Judge Thorson had required defense counsel’s law firm to pay the costs associated with rescheduling the deposition and had denied the request for defense counsel to appear by telephone. The district court reviewed the order under the highly deferential standard applicable to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial matter. Under that standard, reversal is appropriate only if the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Costs of Rescheduling

The defendants argued that requiring defense counsel to pay the rescheduling costs was improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The court rejected that argument. It explained that courts have broad discretion to impose sanctions for discovery abuses and that Rule 37 permits an order requiring payment of reasonable expenses caused by a failure to follow a discovery order.

The court stated that it had repeatedly required defense counsel to schedule and take Anthony’s deposition at an agreed time and in person. Counsel had not complied with the established parameters and deadlines. Although counsel claimed to be unavailable on March 11 and 12, dates previously agreed upon, counsel had not timely given opposing counsel or the court adequate information explaining that unavailability. The court therefore concluded that Judge Thorson acted within her discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 37.

Telephone Appearance and Medical Information

The defendants also argued that Judge Thorson improperly denied their request to appear at the deposition by telephone and failed to consider evidence concerning defense counsel’s inability to travel. The district court rejected those arguments, noting that it had already indicated the deposition should occur in person and that Judge Thorson had discretion to require an in-person deposition given the scheduling problems. The court also found that counsel had not shown that Judge Thorson failed to adequately consider the record.

The court reviewed an amended doctor’s letter concerning Ms. Smith. It found that the letter established that she could not currently travel because of her medical condition but did not state when she would be able to travel. The court therefore expected the parties to work together to schedule Anthony’s deposition in person, either through Ms. Smith if her condition improved or through Ms. Shannon if Ms. Smith remained unable to travel.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ Objection to Discovery Ruling and affirmed Magistrate Judge Thorson’s order.