Order | Filed: September 10, 2026
| Entered: September 10, 2026
Kriman v. Office Depot LLC et al
Civil Rights: Employment | Texas Northern
Order on Motion for Extension of Time Order on Motion for Protective Order Order on Motion to Quash Order on Motion for Sanctions
ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF's 68 MOTION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION.
The Court already addressed Plaintiff's arguments that Defendants are seeking his deposition for some illegitimate reason, and the Court remains unpersuaded that Defendants should be prevented from taking his deposition for discovery purposes. The Court is likewise unpersuaded that the limitations on questioning that Plaintiff proposes are appropriate other than, as the Court already explained, the limitations on duration that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) provides: "[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours."
The Court also does not find good cause to limit or stop Plaintiff's deposition based on his emails or other communications with Defendants' counsel or what Defendants have or have not filed, and the Court will separately address the other pending discovery motions.
The rules presume that a deposition will take place in person, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause, including based on his need to travel, for requiring Defendants to take Plaintiff's deposition over Zoom or some other videoconferencing technology.
The Court finds no basis for Plaintiff's requested sanctions and is not persuaded that Defendants should be prohibited from asking Plaintiff about his prior employment and is confident Defendants and their counsel will not misuse that or any other information about Plaintiff and his medical history or assets that may be relevant and discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The Court does not find good cause to order Defendants to limit those topics or who may talk to their examining attorney (who would typically be only a single attorney).
The Court will separately address Defendants' pending motions and the requests in those pending motions in light of Plaintiff's responses. It won't at this time grant a motion to deny those motions, which is not a proper approach to resisting or opposing a motion. That's what responses are for.
Otherwise, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 30(b)(4) protective order. His deposition, limited to one day for 7 hours, will go forward in person as noticed and scheduled for September 11, 2026. And the parties will bear their own expenses and fees in connection with this motion. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 9/10/2026) (mcrd)