Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_03-cv-00567/USCOURTS-almd-1_03-cv-00567-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVA C. MATTHEWS, )

 )

PLAINTIFF, ) (WO)

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 1:03-cv-567-F

 )

LES BROWNLEE, )

 )

DEFENDANT. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and for Protective

Order Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 62). By this

motion, Plaintiff seeks to quash two depositions currently noticed for August 31, 2005 and

September 2, 2005. The sole objection Plaintiff makes to this depositions is that discovery

in this matter has closed. It is true that Defendant is seeking to schedule these depositions

after the close of discovery in this case; however, Defendant has made it clear that these

depositions sought are trial depositions not discovery depositions. Moreover, it is obvious

to this Court that the witnesses Defendant seeks to depose are outside of the reach of this

Court’s subpoena power. Accordingly, Defendant seeks these depositions for use pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3). Where as here, a requested deposition is not for

purposes of discovery, but rather is taken for purposes of obtaining the testimony of a person

unavailable for trial or outside of the reach of the Court’s subpoena powers, the deposition

may be taken after the close of discovery. See, e.g., Charles v. Wade, 665 F.2d 661, 664 (5th

Case 1:03-cv-00567-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

 In Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982), the Eleventh

Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit

handed down after 30 September, 1981.

2

Cir. Unit B Jan. 11, 1982).1

 Indeed, in such circumstances, this Court would abuse its

discretion if it granted Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that discovery had closed. Id. For

this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 62) is DENIED. 

Done this the 30th day of August, 2005. 

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00567-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2