Reaves v. National Life Ins. Co. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN REAVES, No. 2:22-cv-0219 TLN DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On March 31, 2023, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 19 302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant’s motion for a protective 20 order. (ECF Nos. 18 & 19.) Attorney Daniel Glass appeared via Zoom on behalf of plaintiff. 21 Attorney Daniel Maguire appeared via Zoom on behalf of defendant. 22 As stated in the parties’ Joint Statement, the parties’ dispute concerns whether defendant’s 23 witnesses should be deposed in person, as plaintiff contends, or remotely, as defendant contends. 24 (ECF No. 21 at 2.) “Depositions are generally available as a matter of right; i.e., without leave of 25 court—at any time after an action is commenced.” RUTTER GROUP PRAC. GUIDE FED. CIV. 26 PRO. BEFORE TRIAL Ch. 11(IV)-A. However, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order 27 to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 28 expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c), setting forth grounds for protective orders, was 1 | enacted as a safeguard for the protection of parties and witnesses in view of the broad discovery 2 | rights authorized in Rule 26(b).” U.S. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 3 | 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of 4 | showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. Gen. 5 | Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 Here, as explained at the March 31, 2023 hearing, defendant has not satisfied the specific 7 | prejudice or harm requirement. In this regard, at the March 31, 2023 hearing, defendant argued 8 | that because the medical community cannot predict the impact of contracting COVID on an 9 | individual, the Court should consider the individuals’ health history, community COVID levels, 10 || and the comfort of the witness in deciding whether to compel an in person deposition. 11 While the undersigned takes COVID-19 very seriously, adopting defendant’s argument 12 | would essentially permit remote depositions at the will of the witness. Moreover, the declarations 13 | offered in support of defendant’s argument by the witnesses simply reflect generalized health 14 | concerns, that the witnesses work remotely, and that most of the witnesses “strongly prefer not to 15 | appear personally.”! (ECF No. 21-5 at 2.) Defendant simply has not met the applicable burden. 16 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and at the March 31, 2023 hearing, IT IS 17 | HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff's March 2, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 18) is granted; and 19 2. Defendant’s March 3, 2023 motion for a protective order (ECF No. 19) is denied. 20 | Dated: April 3, 2023 21 22 | DLB:6 73 DB\orders\orders.civil\reavesO219.mtc.ord BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 ' One of the witnesses, however, states they are “willing to appear at the deposition personally.” (ECF No. 21-4 at 2.) Another refers vaguely to “compromised pulmonary function.” (ECF No. 27 | 21-5 at 2.) That witness, however, “contracted COVID-19 in the Fall of 2022,” and stated simply that they became “quite ill.”’ (ECF No. 21-5 at 2.) While the undersigned is sympathetic, the 28 | vague nature of the declaration does not satisfy the specific prejudice or harm requirement.