Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2015 Page 1 of 4

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA
MIAMIDIVISION

CASENO.1520782CIVMARTINEZ/GOODMAN

DENNISL.MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMESRISEN,etal.,

Defendants.
______________________________/
POSTDISCOVERYHEARINGORDER
OnSeptember11,2015,thepartiesappearedbeforetheUndersignedconcerning
disputes surrounding several depositions. [ECF No. 114]. Specifically, Plaintiff sought
depositionsoftwohighrankingofficersofthetwocorporateDefendants,aswellasa
third30(b)(6)depositionofoneofthecorporateDefendantsOrlandooffice.Defendants
objected to all of these proposed depositions. Additionally, Defendants objected to
certain deposition topics noticed for the 30(b)(6) depositions of the corporate
Defendants. For the reasons stated on the record,1 the Undersigned ORDERED the
following:

(1)

Defendants objections to the proposed depositions of Linda Zecher and

William Bayers are sustained. The proposed depositions are premature Apex

If any party appeals this Order to the District Court, then the transcript of the
hearingwillneedtobeordered,asitoutlinestheUndersignedsreasoning.

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2015 Page 2 of 4

depositions and so Plaintiff must first exhaust lessintrusive means of acquiring the
informationtobegleanedfromthembeforemovingtotakethesedepositions.

(2)

Topic number 8 for Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) depositions of the corporate

Defendantsisstrickenwithoutprejudiceaspremature.

(3)

Topic number 9 for Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) depositions of the corporate

Defendantsisstrickenwithoutprejudiceasanimpropersubjectfordepositionatthis
time.

(4)

Plaintiffs request for a separate 30(b)(6) deposition of the corporate

Defendants Orlando office is denied because the Orlando office is not a separate
legalentity.

(5)

Plaintiffs request for a second deposition of Defendant James Risen

concerninghisaffidavit[ECFNo.109]aboutthethumbdriveisdenied.

(6)

Asthepartylosingthisdiscoverydispute,Plaintiff(and/orhiscounsel)is

responsibleforattorneysfeesunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure37,unlessoneor
more of a limited list of exceptions apply. Rule 37 establishes a loser pays scenario,
and requires the Court to enter a costs award, including attorneys fees, unless an
exceptionapplies.NoexceptionappliestoPlaintiffsrequestfora30(b)(6)depositionof
corporate DefendantsOrlando officeornoticeoftheSECfilingsissueforthe30(b)(6)
depositions(topicnumber9).

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2015 Page 3 of 4

FederalRule37(a)(5)(A)providesthattheCourtmustrequirethelosingparty

or attorney or both to pay the costs/fees award, in the absence of an exception.

Moreover, the Discovery Procedures Order [ECF No. 48] and the Updated Discovery
ProceduresOrder[ECFNo.123]bothspecificallycautionpartiesabouttheruleandits
requirement that fees be awarded unless an exception applies. The Undersigned does
notbelievethatPlaintiffshouldpaytheaward,asitseemsthatitwashisattorneywho
stridentlypursuedthesetwopositions.Therefore,itisPlaintiffscounsel2whowillpay
thefeesawardof$250bySeptember18,2015.

Ifanyparty(orcounselofrecord)objectstoeitherthefeesawardortheamount

oftheaward,thentheCourtwillholdahearingifanobjectionisfiledbySeptember16,
2015.Ifthechallengeistotheamount,thencounselforbothsideswillberequiredto
submittheirbillingrecordsforthetimeinquestion.

Finally,Plaintiffscounselshallnot,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,passonthefees

award to his client. Plaintiffs counsel shall submit an affidavit of compliance,

confirming that the payment was made, to the Courts efile inbox
(goodman@flsd.uscourts.gov) within three days of making the payment. This is the e

TheUndersigneddoesnotconsideraRule37(a)(5)(A)expenseshiftingawardto
beasanction,ortheimpositionofdiscipline,oranindicationthatanyoneactedinbad
faith. Rather, it is merely a consequence of taking certain unsuccessful discovery
positions.Thus,thisOrderwouldnotrequirePlaintiffscounseltoansweryesifever
asked(e.g.,byaprospectiveemployer,byaninsurancecarrier,byajudicialnominating
commission, by a client, or by a prospective client) if he had ever been sanctioned or
disciplined.
2

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2015 Page 4 of 4

file inbox, not the official CM/ECF filing protocol for pleadings, motions and other
Courtsubmissions.

DONEANDORDEREDinChambers,atMiami,Florida,September15,2015.

Copiesfurnishedto:
TheHonorableJoseE.Martinez
Allcounselofrecord