This case came before the court on June 25, 2010, for hearing of defendants' motion for protective orders preventing or limiting the scope of six depositions and plaintiffs' counter-motion to compel the completion of the depositions on or before the applicable discovery deadline of July 23, 2010.*fn1 Henry Jones, Esq. appeared telephonically for plaintiffs. Christina M. Paul, Esq. appeared telephonically for defendants.
Upon consideration of the parties' briefing, their arguments in open court, and the entire file, the court grants defendants' motion for protective orders in part and grants plaintiffs' motion to compel with regard to the deadline for completing the depositions.
1. Defendants' motion for protective orders (Doc. No. 134) is granted in part as follows:
a. With respect to plaintiff's June 4, 2010 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice relating to the Joint Defense/Common Interest Agreement and the Industry's Response to Orifice Injury Hazards, the scope of topics 1 and 2 is narrowed as set forth at the hearing and plaintiffs are limited to two hours of examination on all ten topics, while cross-examination by defendants is unlimited;
b. With respect to plaintiffs' June 15, 2010 Rule 30(b)(1) deposition notice of defendants' Chief Financial Officer, the deposition is precluded at this time based on the assumption that defendants' responses to written discovery will be adequate with respect to the subject matter at issue; however, if defendants' responses to written discovery are not adequate for plaintiffs' purposes, plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel the 30(b)(1) deposition, on shortened time;
c. With respect to plaintiffs' May 28, 2010 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice regarding the 2009 Letter to Owners Regarding Updated Safety Video, plaintiffs are limited to two hours of examination regarding the letter, while cross-examination by defendants is unlimited;
d. With respect to plaintiffs' June 11, 2010 deposition subpoenas of Dr. Stephen L. Young, Dr. Timothy Rhoades and Elaine Wisniewski, these depositions are precluded; and
2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Doc. No. 134) is granted, and the depositions not precluded by this order shall ...