Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05208/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05208-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JAMES E. HOELSCHER, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5208

BEAVER WATER DISTRICT DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 16 day of September, 2005, comes on to be th

considered Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order and Motion to

Strike Attorney Colene Gaston as Witness (Doc. 35) and Defendant’s

Motion to Quash Subpoena of Colene Gaston (Doc. 44). The Court,

being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows

with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiff brings this action alleging, inter alia, that

defendant terminated him because he notified the Arkansas

Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) that he believed

defendant was violating its discharge permit and ADEQ rules and

regulations. 

2. In his initial disclosures, counsel for plaintiff

identified defense counsel Colene Gaston as an individual likely

to have discoverable information regarding various matters.

Plaintiff’s counsel has subpoenaed Gaston to appear for a

deposition on Monday, September 19, 2005. In the motions now

before the Court, defendant moves to quash the subpoena and also

moves for entry of a protective order prohibiting plaintiff from

deposing or calling Gaston as a witness in this case.

Case 5:04-cv-05208-JLH Document 47 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

3. A party is entitled to take opposing counsel’s

deposition only where the party has shown that (1) no other means

exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel;

(2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3)

the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. See

Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8 Cir. th

1986). 

In his initial disclosures, plaintiff’s counsel identified 28

potential witnesses. It appears many of these witnesses can

testify to the same matters Gaston purportedly has knowledge of

and, thus, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has no

other means of obtaining the subject information. Plaintiff is

therefore not entitled to depose Gaston or call her as a witness.

4. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena of

Colene Gaston (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.

Likewise, Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order and

Motion to Strike Attorney Colene Gaston as Witness (Doc. 35) is

GRANTED and plaintiff is hereby prohibited from deposing Gaston or

calling her as a witness.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05208-JLH Document 47 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>