IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MARCELLE ANN ANGALL-LEONCE 

and ROMANUS SYLVESTER LEONCE, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No.: 1:20-cv-127-AW-GRJ

ON POINT TRANSPORT, INC., and 

JOSEPH MISATULI LEIA

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL IN-PERSON DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS

COME NOW, the Defendants, ON POINT TRANSPORT, INC. and JOSEPH 

MISATULI LEIA, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 30 and all 

other applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1, hereby move this 

Honorable Court to compel Plaintiffs to appear for in-person depositions. In support thereof, 

Defendants state:

1. This matter relates to a personal injury claim related to a motor vehicle collision 

that occurred on or about July 26, 2015 in or around Micanopy, Alachua County, Florida. That 

matter was initiated in State Court in Gainesville, Florida.

2. The Defendants removed this matter from the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial 

Circuit, in and for Alachua County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Florida, Gainesville Division.

3. Pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order Granting Joint Motion for Extensions, 

the deadline to complete discovery is January 31, 2021.

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 7
2

4. On or about November 18, 2020, Defendants noticed the videotaped depositions 

of Plaintiffs Marcelle Ann Angall-Leonce and Romanus Sylvester Leonce. In recognition of the 

serious health crisis facing the nation and the State of Florida from COVID-19 and in an effort to 

maintain the orderly administration of justice, Defendants initially noticed these depositions with 

an indication that the “instructions for Zoom participation will be forwarded at a later date.” 

(See, Notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions).

5. Subsequently, Defendants received Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Expert 

Disclosure, which outlined a substantial escalation of the damages claimed by Plaintiffs, related 

to allegations of traumatic brain injury.

6. In light of the damages and injuries claimed, Defendants are unable to fully and 

fairly examine, assess, and observe Plaintiffs for discovery purposes by means of video 

teleconferencing and cannot stipulate to depositions of Plaintiffs by remote means. Considering 

the importance of the issues at stake, an in-person deposition is the only discovery mechanism 

available that does not act to prejudice Defendants’ ability to evaluate the claims made against

them.

7. Therefore, Defendants filed Amended Notices of Taking Depositions directing

Plaintiffs to personally appear for depositions, subject to reasonable health precautions including 

masks, social distancing, and proper symptom monitoring.

8. Inasmuch as the parties do not agree to conducting the deposition remotely, and 

because no court order in this case, local rule, or administrative order of this Court direct the 

parties to conduct all depositions by videoconferencing, Plaintiffs should be directed to appear 

personally for a deposition.

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 7
3

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Rule 26(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 

controversy, the parties’ relative access to the relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Generally, a party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without 

leave of court. Rule 30(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. “The parties may stipulate – or the court may on 

motion or order – that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means.” Rule 

30(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P. Absent agreement or court order, the deposing party may select the 

place of the deposition. See, e.g., Shockey v. Huhtamaki, Inc., 280 F.R.D. 598, 600 (D. Kan. 

2012); see also, Huddleston v. Bowling Green Inn of Pensacola, LLC, 333 F.R.D. 581, 585 (N.D. 

Fla. 2019)(party taking the deposition usually selects the place where the deposition will be 

conducted). With respect to the deposition of a plaintiff, the general rule is that “a plaintiff will 

be required to make himself or herself available for examination in the district in which suit was 

brought.” Id.; see also, Dude v. Congress Plaza, LLC, 2018 WL 1009263 (S.D. Fla. February 

20, 2018)(no undue burden to Plaintiff to return to forum for in-person deposition). 

Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will assert that concerns related to the ongoing global 

pandemic, which was declared by World Health Organization relative to the outbreak and spread 

of coronavirus (COVID-19), supports their desire to refrain from an in-person deposition in the 

forum where their action is pending. Reliance on this pandemic as a basis for avoiding any inperson appearance for deposition is somewhat specious inasmuch as Plaintiff has travelled to 

Florida on a number of other occasions related to this litigation. For example, and as detailed by

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 7
4

Plaintiffs’ Rule 26 Expert Disclosure, on or about September 30, 2020, Ms. Angall-Leonce 

evidently travelled to Florida for evaluation and treatment by her disclosed expert, Dr. Marc 

Sharfman of the Headache & Neurological Treatment Institute. On that same date, Ms. AngallLeonce also consulted with, and was examined by, Christopher Leber, M.D. in Gainesville, 

Florida for the purpose of completing a life care plan. Furthermore, just weeks ago, Plaintiff

also appeared in Gainesville on November 5, 2020 for a Compulsory Medical Examination 

before Defendants’ expert, Steven M. Bailey, M.D. Plaintiff asserted no good cause for failing 

to personally attend any of these interactions relative to her lawsuit. Finally, Plaintiff will no 

doubt be compelled to physically appear at the trial of this matter in Gainesville in less than five 

months time. Therefore, no good cause exists for failure to personally appear for a discovery 

deposition as noticed.

Notwithstanding the above, Defendants recognize that pursuant to this Honorable 

Court’s most recent Administrative Order regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent 

Circumstances Created by COVID-19, “hearings and other appearances before the Court may be 

held remotely by video or telephone conference or in-person at a courthouse, as determined by 

the assigned judge.” See, Administrative Order (“AO”) ¶2; 4:95-mc-40111-DJ (August 12, 

2020). Remote proceedings are not, however, mandated. Many of the safety precautions 

outlined by this Court for in-person appearances at the courthouse can likewise be implemented 

or utilized to safely conduct in-person deposition of the Plaintiffs. For instance:

a. All deposition participants can monitor their health on a daily basis and upon 

notification that any participant has been in close contact with someone who has tested positive 

for COVID-19 or if they fell ill or exhibit any COVID-19 symptoms, postponement can be 

sought. (See, AO ¶4).

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 4 of 7
5

b. All deposition participants can practice social distancing measures and wear a 

cloth face mask when moving about during the deposition. (See, AO ¶5).

c. All deposition participants would have hand sanitizer and/or the ability for 

frequent hand washing available at the deposition location. (See, AO ¶6).

d. All commonly touched surfaces within the deposition location would be cleaned 

and disinfected prior to commencement of the deposition. (See, AO ¶7).

Additionally, because the participants at the depositions can be limited to the court reporter, the 

deponent, his or her counsel, and counsel for Defendants . . . a total of four individuals ... social 

distancing is easily achieved. As a result, adequate safeguards exist to effectively mitigate any 

safety concerns that might be reasonably articulated.

Defendants will be substantially prejudiced if ordered to move forward with only remote 

access depositions of the Plaintiffs by video conference. Aside from the technological issues that 

often present related to lags in communication transmissions, limited and static field of vision to 

participants, and potential difficulties in ease of presentation and discussion of any exhibits, 

video conferences inherently impede counsel’s ability to fully and fairly observe the deponent 

and make his or her own critical determinations about the witness, which substantially impact the 

ability to reasonably evaluate her claim. Because such prejudice substantially outweighs any 

good cause submitted for conducting these depositions by remote means, Plaintiffs should be 

compelled to attend their depositions in-person, subject to reasonable health precautions.

WHEREFORE, Defendants ON POINT TRANSPORT, INC. and JOSESPH 

MISATULI LEIA, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an order compelling 

Plaintiff to appear in-person for a deposition in or around Gainesville, Florida 

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 5 of 7
6

LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) CERTIFICATION

\

Defendants hereby certify that on or about November 19, 2020, and pursuant to Local 

Rule 7.1(B) and the Initial Scheduling Order in this matter, the undersigned/moving counsel has 

conferred in good faith with opposing counsel who does not agree to a resolution of this Motion.

(Certificate of Service on following page)

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 6 of 7
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 

to JACK J. FINE, ESQUIRE of Fine, Farakash & Parlapiano, P.A., located at 622 Northeast 

First Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601, via Electronic Mail jfine@ffplaw.com and 

jduchaj@ffplaw.com this 25th day of November, 2020.

FERNANDEZ TRIAL LAWYERS, P.A.

/s/ John Moffitt Howell_______________________

E.T. FERNANDEZ, III, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 371556

JOHN MOFFITT HOWELL, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 243027

8780-200 Perimeter Park Court

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

(904) 398-8008 (Phone)

(904) 398-0332 (Fax)

Attorneys for Defendants 

The following e-mail addresses are only for e-mail 

service pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.080:

Primary: Pleadings@Fernandeztl.com

Secondary: JHowell@Fernandeztl.com

KLang-Thorbs@Fernandeztl.com

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ Document 17 Filed 11/24/20 Page 7 of 7