United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
WELLS ROBY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion for Protective Order to Require
Deposition of Daniel Dragan Occur in Naples,
Florida and, alternatively, to Require Deposition by Remote
Means (R. Doc. 80) filed by Defendant Daniel Dragan
seeking an order from the Court for his deposition to be
taken in either Naples, Florida or by remote means. The
motion was opposed. R. Doc. 82.
following reasons, the motion for protective order is
action was filed in the District Court on June 29, 2015. R.
Doc. 1. Plaintiffs Eddie Sussman, Sr. and Leading Edge
Financial Services (“Plaintiffs”) brought this
action against Daniel Dragan and Financial Guard Services
(“Defendants”) under the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act (“CFAA”) 18 U.S.C. § 1030; the Lanham
Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); the Louisiana Uniform Trade
Secret Act (“LUTSA”) La. Rev. Stat. §
51:1431 et seq.; the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices Act (“LUPTA”) La. Rev. Stat. §
51:1401 et seq.; and the state law tort claim of
conversion. R. Doc. 4, p. 1-2. The Plaintiffs allege that
Dragan was a former independent contractor for the Plaintiffs
managing the IT and marketing needs of Leading Edge Financial
Services and its subsidiaries. R. Doc. 4, p. 3-4. Plaintiffs
further allege that Dragan had access to all of the
Plaintiffs confidential, proprietary and trade secret
information while an independent contractor. Id. at
p. 4. Plaintiffs state that the independent contractor
agreement with Dragan was terminated on May 15, 2015.
Id. Soon thereafter, Plaintiffs allege that Dragan
started Financial Guard Services to compete with the
Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants used
the Plaintiffs' confidential, proprietary, and trade
secret information that Dragan had stolen before his contract
was terminated. Id. at p. 5. Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants have refused to return the converted property
as well as have created a number of websites mimicking
Plaintiffs' websites in order to confuse Plaintiffs'
customers to do business with the Defendants. Moreover,
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have used the converted
property to: 1) redirect incoming calls from Plaintiffs'
business telephone lines to Defendants' lines; 2) access
Plaintiffs' email marketing service to mass email
Plaintiffs' customers to direct them to contact
Defendants; and 3) redirect payment of certain insurance
commissions from Plaintiffs' bank account to
Defendants' bank account. Id. at p. 9-10.
Plaintiffs seek damages as well as injunctive relief for the
return of the Plaintiffs' property.
21, 2016, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion
for default judgment against Financial Guard Services
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). R. Doc.
time, Defendant Dragan has filed a motion for protective
order seeking to have his deposition taken in Naples, Florida
or by remote means. R. Doc. 80. Dragan appears to argue that
submitting to his deposition by the Plaintiffs in New Orleans
would cause an undue burden on him as he is over 12 hours of
driving time away and travel expenses would be too costly.
Id. at p. 2. Dragan also indicates that the
deposition notice is overly broad as it seeks to depose him
from day-to-day until the deposition is complete. R. Doc.
80-1, p. 2.
Plaintiffs have opposed the instant motion arguing that the
deposition should occur in New Orleans, Louisiana because:
(i) they expect a significant discovery disputes to arise
during the deposition; (ii) the Court has already ruled that
litigating this matter in this District does not present an
undue burden to Dragan; (iii) the Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' Counsel are located in New Orleans; and (iv)
that the document-intensive nature of the case will make it
more efficient to require Dragan to appear in New Orleans. R.
Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs the requirements for
depositions by oral examination, allowing a party to
“depose any person, including a party, without leave of
the court” except in certain cases where the parties
have not stipulated to the deposition and if the deponent is
confined in prison. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(1)-(2). Generally,
notice for a deposition requires that the party requesting
deposition “give reasonable written notice to every
other party.... stat[ing] the time and place of the
deposition and, if known, the deponent's name and
address.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1). The noticing party
must also state the method to be used for recording the
testimony. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(3).
26(c) governs the issuances of Protective Orders in
discovery. A Court may “for good cause, issue an order
to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c)(1). The rule offers a variety of potential options that
the Court may use to protect the moving party, including
forbidding or limiting the scope of discovery into certain
matters or requiring that a trade secret or other
confidential commercial information not be revealed or be
revealed in only a certain way. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(D),
(G). “The party seeking the protective order bears the
burden to show ‘the necessity of its issuance, which
contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of
fact[.]'” Cazaubon v. MR Precious Metals,
LLC, 14-2241, 2015 WL 4937888, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 17,
2015) (quoting In re Terra Int'l, 134 F.3d 302,
306 (5th Cir.1998)). The trial court enjoys wide discretion
in setting the parameters of a protective order. See
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)
(“To be sure, Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on
the trial court to decide when a protective order is
appropriate and what degree of protection is
required.”). Finally, Rule 26(c)(1) requires a
certification that the moving party has conferred or
attempted to confer in good faith with the other affected
party to attempt to resolve the issue without the court's
Dragan has filed a motion for protective order seeking to
have his deposition taken in Naples, Florida or by remote
means. R. Doc. 80. Dragan appears to argue that submitting to
his deposition by ...