Olson v. Skateville, Inc.
- Donovan Frank
- 0:19-cv-00352
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Olson v. Skateville, Inc., Judge Leung granted a protective order barring Olson’s deposition of Charity Amber Billings and denied his discovery motion.
Aaron L. Olson was prohibited from deposing Charity Amber Billings absent further court order, and Skateville, Inc. was not required to provide information it said it did not have.
What happened
In Olson v. Skateville, Inc., Aaron L. Olson sought to depose Charity Amber Billings and asked the court to require Skateville to provide the legal name of another person he wanted to depose.
The court granted the request for a protective order and prohibited Olson from taking Billings’s deposition unless the court later orders otherwise. It denied Olson’s motion to compel because Skateville said it did not have the requested name.
Judge Leung relied on an existing harassment restraining order protecting Billings and concerns that the deposition could evade that order. The court also noted that Olson had been designated a restricted filer after being found to be a vexatious litigant.
The detailed version
- Olson v. Skateville, Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-00352
- Donovan Frank
- Mar. 19, 2020
Background
Aaron L. Olson, representing himself, noticed the deposition of Charity Amber Billings. Billings and Skateville, Inc. objected and requested a protective order. They pointed to an ex parte harassment restraining order prohibiting all direct or indirect contact between Billings and Olson. A hearing on that restraining order was scheduled for May 2020.
Olson also moved to compel Skateville to provide the legal name of an individual he wanted to depose. Olson argued that a process server could not locate and serve the deposition notice without that information. Skateville responded that it did not have the requested information.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. That rule permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 26(c)(1) allows a court, for good cause, to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense caused by discovery.
The court granted the protective-order request concerning Billings. It relied on the restraining order’s findings that Olson had followed, pursued, or stalked Billings; made harassing phone calls; frightened her with threatening behavior; and committed harassment after an earlier restraining order. The court also noted that Olson was a restricted filer in the District of Minnesota after being found to be a vexatious litigant. The court expressed serious concern that the deposition could be used to circumvent the protection provided by the restraining order.
The court denied the motion to compel. It explained that Skateville could not be compelled to produce information it did not have, while also stating that any responsive information should be provided promptly.
Disposition
The court granted the Objection to Notice of Deposition or, alternatively, Request for Protective Order. Olson was prohibited from taking Billings’s deposition absent further order of the court. The court denied Olson’s Motion and Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery. The order also stated that prior consistent orders remained in force and warned that violations could result in sanctions or other remedies, including possible dismissal with prejudice or default judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.