Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied Plaintiff Kevin Giroir’s motion for a protective order and to quash or limit a non-party subpoena directed to his spouse, Kemberly Giroir. The court held that Plaintiff’s voluntary submission of his spouse’s declarations placed her statements and credibility at issue, making a deposition relevant and not cumulative or duplicative.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendant's subpoena for the deposition of Plaintiff's spouse sought relevant and proportional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
- Whether the deposition was unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Ms. Giroir's two declarations under Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
- Whether the court should limit the deposition to written questions or restrict questioning to confirmation of the February 9, 2024 telephone contact.
Holdings
- The deposition of Kemberly Giroir was relevant because Plaintiff voluntarily submitted her declarations in support of his allegations, thereby placing her statements and credibility as a witness at issue.
- The deposition was not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative because the two declarations were brief, substantially similar, and provided only partial information about the telephone interaction rather than an exhaustive account.
- The court declined to limit the deposition to written questions or to restrict all questioning to confirmation of the February 9, 2024 contact, while recognizing that defense counsel must ask only relevant questions.
Key quotations
“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” (Legal Standard, Section II)
“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.” (Legal Standard, Section II)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleges that he made a verbal complaint to Dow Human Resources about discriminatory conduct on February 9, 2024. Later that day, a Dow Human Resources representative contacted Plaintiff's spouse, Kemberly Giroir, who later executed two short declarations describing the call and stating that she overheard Plaintiff discuss alleged targeting by his supervisor. Plaintiff relied on those declarations to support his claims, and Defendant sought Ms. Giroir's deposition to examine her statements and credibility.
Procedural history
Plaintiff submitted two declarations from Kemberly Giroir concerning a telephone call from Dow Human Resources related to Plaintiff's allegations of discriminatory conduct and events preceding his termination. Defendant then subpoenaed Ms. Giroir for a video deposition. The court denied Plaintiff's motion for a protective order and to quash or limit the subpoena.