Casey Lowe v. Thomas J. Vilsack

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies Plaintiff Casey Lowe’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2), arising from defense counsel’s conduct during a deposition. The court declines to reject the motion on procedural grounds and concludes that counsel’s objections, although sometimes adversarial, did not impede, delay, or frustrate the deposition.

Holdings

1. Sanctions are not appropriate because Defendant’s objections during Ms. Blount’s deposition, though adversarial and aggressive, properly preserved Defendant’s objections in response to the questions posed and did not impede, delay, or frustrate Plaintiff’s ability to conduct the deposition.
2. The Court declines to deny the motion on procedural grounds, finding prior informal discovery conferences satisfied meet-and-confer requirements and that the Court’s own scheduling impacted the hearing date.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sanctions are appropriate under FRCP 30(d)(2) for defense counsel's objections and conduct during a deposition
2. Whether Plaintiff complied with procedural requirements for filing a motion for sanctions

Disposition

denied