Summary
The court grants Defendants’ motion to quash Plaintiff’s noticed deposition of former Wal-Mart employee Lane Smith. The ruling finds that Plaintiff improperly failed to appear for his continued deposition without seeking a protective order or adequately resolving his objections to the location and scope of the deposition. The court requires Plaintiff to complete his deposition before proceeding with the deposition of Lane Smith and will schedule a status conference to address both depositions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendants established good cause to quash Plaintiff's notice of Lane Smith's deposition after Plaintiff failed to appear for his own properly noticed continued deposition.
- Whether Plaintiff should be required to complete his own deposition before proceeding with the deposition of a former Wal-Mart employee.
Holdings
- Good cause existed to quash the deposition notice because Plaintiff failed to appear for his continued deposition, did not seek a protective order before refusing to attend, and thereby caused unnecessary expense and delayed discovery.
- Plaintiff must complete his continued deposition before he may proceed with the deposition of Lane Smith.
Key quotations
““Good cause” exists when justice requires the protection of “a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.””
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ motion to quash [Doc. 146] the deposition notice for March 4, 2026, of Lane Smith is GRANTED.”
Factual background
Plaintiff had previously failed to provide complete discovery responses and a medical-records authorization, limiting Defendants' ability to question him fully at his initial deposition. Defendants noticed a continued deposition concerning medical records and damages for February 23, 2026, in Tupelo, Mississippi, within 75 miles of Plaintiff's apparent residence in Oxford. Plaintiff objected by email to the location and anticipated length but did not respond further, contact the court, or appear at the deposition. He then noticed the deposition of Lane Smith for March 4, 2026.
Procedural history
The court previously granted Defendants' motion to compel, ordered Plaintiff to provide complete discovery responses and a medical-records authorization, and awarded Defendants reasonable expenses. Defendants later noticed Plaintiff's continued deposition concerning medical records and damages. Plaintiff did not appear at the noticed deposition, did not seek a protective order, and instead noticed the deposition of Lane Smith. Following a status conference, Defendants moved to quash the Smith deposition notice.
Remand instructions
The court will set a further status conference to address resetting Plaintiff's deposition and the quashed deposition of Lane Smith. Plaintiff must complete his deposition before proceeding with the Smith deposition.