Sarah GEIGER v. GRAVOIS ALUMINUM BOATS LLC CASE NOS. 6:22-CV-00374 (LEAD), 6:22-CV-05877 (MEMBER), 6:22-CV-01379 (MEMBER) United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division Signed February 22, 2024 Counsel J. Geoffrey Ormsby, Reagan Reynolds Wilty, Smith & Fawer, New Orleans, LA, Danielle C. Teutonico, Michael Ryan Dodson, Monica Leigh Bergeron, Fishman Haygood, New Orleans, LA, for Sarah Geiger in Nos. 6:22-CV-00374, 6:22-CV-05877. Christine Wadkins Adams, DeShazo Adams, New Orleans, LA, Micah Collins Zeno, Gordon Arata et al., New Orleans, LA, Michael Louis DeShazo, Kinney Ellinghausen & DeShazo, New Orleans, LA, John Graf, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata et al., Lafayette, LA, for Gravois Aluminum Boats LLC in Nos. 6:22-CV-00374, 6:22-CV-05877. Brian James Houghtaling, Houghtaling Law Firm, Metairie, LA, for Suella Dugar in No. 6:22-CV-01379. Lyon H. Garrison, Travis L. Garrison, Garrison Yount et al., New Orleans, LA, Cheri Quigley, Montiel Hodge, New Orleans, LA, for American Summit Insurance Co. in No. 6:22-CV-01379. Ayo, David J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before this Court is Plaintiff's MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS. (Rec. Doc. 25). Defendant opposes the motion. (Rec. Doc. 34). Considering the pending motion and the law and argument advanced by the parties thereon, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED in part based on the following findings. (1) Plaintiff provided reasonable written notice, dated December 15, 2022, of the contested depositions after lengthy attempts to schedule such depositions with defense counsel, commencing on or about November 4, 2022. The deposition notices set these depositions for January 10 and 11, 2023. (Rec. Doc. 25-9). Although the intervening holidays present some grounds for an argument of unreasonableness, the evidence in this case establishes that Plaintiff rescheduled the depositions to January 10 and January 11 in deference to Defendant's request. (2) Plaintiff's notice of the scheduled deposition of attorney Paul Simon, a member of defendant's team of counsel, was reasonable in light of Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 5. This Court notes that the record in this case indicates that Mr. Simon was perhaps serving GAB in the capacity of a transactional attorney during GAB's equity sale (See, Civ. Act. No. 23-CV-1379 at Rec. Doc. 11-2) before assuming the role of defense counsel. Insofar as this is accurate, it raises the issue of the attorney-witness rule in this matter. This Court makes no finding on this issue at this time but urges Defendant to consider the issue carefully pursuant to Rule 3.7 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. (3) Defense counsel failed to communicate objections concerning the location of the noticed depositions upon receipt of the subject deposition notices. To the extent Defendant bases its unilateral cancellation on its argument that New Orleans is an unreasonable location at which to take the subject depositions, this Court finds no evidence of any effort to communicate this objection to Plaintiff's counsel. If Defendant has evidence of any such efforts, it is assumed that such evidence would have been attached to Defendant's opposition brief. (4) Plaintiff's noticed 30(B)(6) deposition of Gravois Aluminum Boats, LLC (“GAB”) does not feature topics so unreasonable as to warrant unilateral cancellation of the scheduled deposition, particularly in light of GAB's responses to discovery indicating that valuation of Evolution in the years since GAB's alleged purchase of Plaintiff's shares may be relevant to Plaintiff's claims in this case. (5) Defendant failed to avail itself of the procedure by which a party may contest a properly noticed deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Defense counsel's belief that this procedure is “wasteful” and “inefficient” is unfounded, particularly as it asserts a motion for protective is only proper in the court for the district where the deposition is to take place. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) (“[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending – or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken.”). Defendant's failure to confer earnestly about the noticed depositions and to avail itself of the procedure expressly provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure fomented the filing of Plaintiff's instant motion. *2 Considering the foregoing, this Court deems GAB's unilateral cancellation of the subject noticed depositions a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). In the time since the filing of Plaintiff's instant motion, the trial date of this matter has been continued and Plaintiff's subsequent suits have been consolidated with this matter for all further proceedings. (Rec. Docs. 61–63). This Court anticipates entry of a new Scheduling Order in these consolidated cases in the near future. For this reason, GAB will not be ordered to submit to the noticed depositions within a specified period, as would normally be appropriate based on the findings above. Plaintiff's motion is, accordingly, DENIED insofar as it seeks an order compelling the contested depositions under a specific deadline. Once a trial date is set for the consolidated matters, discovery should commence without delay. Should it become necessary to reurge this portion of the instant motion after issuance of a new Scheduling Order, Plaintiff may do so. After review of the briefs and noting defense counsel's caustic tone in communications with opposing counsel, it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's instant motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of sanctions. Defendant shall pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in the filing of the instant motion. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a bill of costs within 30 days of the issuance of this Order, after which Defendant may traverse the bill of costs by written brief within 15 days. Thereafter, this Court will issue an appropriate judgment in conformity with this Order. SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2024 at Lafayette, Louisiana.