Summary
This Decision and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin resolves several pending motions, including a motion to amend the case caption, a motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and a motion for a protective order regarding upcoming depositions. The court granted the motion to remove a former defendant from the caption and denied the Rule 11 sanctions motion, noting that Rule 11 does not apply to discovery requests. The court partially granted the protective order, restricting deposition recordings to certified professionals, limiting attendance, setting mutually agreeable locations, and prohibiting public dissemination of deposition videos due to concerns over harassment and abuse via social media.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Jacqueline Mann remains a defendant after dismissal of the public‑records claim.
- Whether the defendants are entitled to Rule 11 sanctions for Kuether’s discovery conduct.
- Whether the defendants are entitled to a protective order limiting deposition recording, location, attendance, scope, and confidentiality.
Holdings
- Mann is no longer a defendant; the motion to amend the case caption is granted.
- Rule 11 sanctions are denied because Rule 11 does not apply to discovery requests.
- The protective order granting that limitation is affirmed.
- Depositions must be held at a mutually agreeable location other than the attorney’s offices; attendance is limited to parties, counsel, the deponent, and a certified videographer or court reporter.
- The request to limit the scope of depositions is denied; the scope is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
- The depositions are not designated confidential in their entirety; confidentiality may be asserted on a case‑by‑case basis.
Key quotations
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
Factual background
Deborah Kuether, former Director of Literacy for Milwaukee Public Schools, alleges race‑based discrimination and retaliation by MPS officials. The defendants contend that Kuether’s discovery practices, including posting deposition videos on YouTube, constitute harassment.
Procedural history
The court previously denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint (2024 WL 218421) and partially granted a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (2024 WL 3026518). The parties later filed a joint motion for protective order, which was granted, and subsequently filed the present motions.