Rodriguez v. PJ Hafiz Club Management Inc.

Background

Jacqueline Rodriguez filed the case without a lawyer and alleged sexual harassment, negligence, breach of duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery arising from an alleged September 15, 2018 incident at Sneaky Pete’s, a Minneapolis bar managed by PJ Hafiz Club Management Inc. Rodriguez alleged that she lived in Flagstaff, Arizona and had been visiting Minneapolis when the incident occurred.

PJ Hafiz noticed Rodriguez’s deposition for May 30, 2019, at its counsel’s offices in Minneapolis. Rodriguez said she had no income or means to pay for travel from Arizona to Minnesota. She asked for a protective order preventing the deposition or requiring it to occur through written questions, telephone, video conference, or another method. She also moved to quash the deposition notice.

The court previously gave Rodriguez an opportunity to provide a notarized affidavit or legally sufficient declaration describing her current income, assets, liabilities, and expenses. She did not supplement the record or request more time.

Rule 45 and the deposition notice

The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs subpoenas, did not apply. PJ Hafiz had noticed Rodriguez’s deposition under Rule 30, which allows a party to depose another party without using a subpoena, subject to stated exceptions. Therefore, the geographic limits that apply to subpoenas—including the 100-mile limit—did not apply to Rodriguez’s party deposition. The court denied the motions to the extent they relied on Rule 45.

Request to change or prevent the deposition

Under Rule 26, a court may issue a protective order for good cause to protect a person from undue burden or expense, including by setting the time, place, or allocation of discovery expenses. The court explained that plaintiffs generally must make themselves available for depositions in the district where they filed suit, although an exception may apply if the plaintiff makes a compelling showing of an unusually heavy burden or if discovery would be more efficient elsewhere.

The court found that Rodriguez had not made that showing. Her statements about having no income, assets, cash, or ability to pay for travel were not supported by specific current evidence. Her earlier application to proceed without paying court fees was more than eight months old, and Rodriguez did not provide the additional financial information the court requested.

The court also found no extraordinary circumstances justifying a complete ban on the deposition. It concluded that written questions, telephone testimony, or video testimony would not be suitable on the current record because they could make it harder to evaluate Rodriguez’s nonverbal responses and determine whether anyone was coaching or listening to her. The court further found that Rodriguez had not shown that conducting the deposition in Arizona would be more efficient, while PJ Hafiz represented that at least three people would need to travel there.

Rulings and case schedule

The court denied Rodriguez’s Motion for Protective Order and denied her Motion to Quash. Rodriguez was required to appear for her deposition in Minnesota. The court declined PJ Hafiz’s request for an advance warning about possible sanctions if Rodriguez failed to appear.

The court canceled the settlement conference scheduled for July 24, 2019 and stated that it would be rescheduled. It ordered the parties, within seven days of the order, to file a letter identifying the deposition date and any remaining discovery. The court planned to schedule a status call after the deposition to address the case schedule and timing of a settlement conference.

Judge

The order was signed by Elizabeth Cowan Wright, United States Magistrate Judge.