IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

ZAUSNER FOODS CORP., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CLAUDE BLANDIN, BRUNO BLANDIN, 

PATRICK BLANDIN, and ARNO LEONI, 

individuals, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-

10, 

Defendants.

Case No. 22-22660-Civ-KMM 

PLAINTIFF ZAUSNER FOODS CORP.’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO 

PREVENT SECOND DEPOSITIONS OF ALEX BONGRAIN AND PIERRE RAGNET 

David W. Marston Jr. 

Florida Bar No. 111636 

Email: david.marston@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305.415.3303 

eFacsimile: 877.432.9652 

Troy S. Brown (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: troy.brown@morganlewis.com 

Margot G. Bloom (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: margot.bloom@morganlewis.com 

Su Jin Kim (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: su.kim@morganlewis.com 

Brian Morris (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: brian.morris@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1700 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 

Telephone: 215.963.5214 

eFacsimile: 215.963.5001 

Counsel for Plaintiff Zausner Foods Corp.

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 1 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 3 

A. The Related Delaware Action and Its Overlap with the Present Litigation ........... 3 

B. Alex Bongrain, Pierre Ragnet, and their Prior Depositions ................................... 4 

III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5 

IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5 

A. Defendants Cannot Carry their Burden of Proving an Apex Deposition of 

Mr. Bongrain Is Necessary .................................................................................... 5 

B. Compelling Alex Bongrain and Pierre Ragnet to Sit for Second 

Depositions Would Be Cumulative, Unduly Burdensome, and Harassing ........... 7 

C. In the Alternative, Defendants Should Be Permitted Only to Take 

Depositions of Messrs. Bongrain or Ragnet by Written Questions under 

Rule 31, or any Supplemental Deposition(s) Should be Severely TimeLimited and Conducted via Remote Video ............................................................ 8 

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 2 of 16
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Arugu v. City of Plantation, 

No. 09-61618-CIV-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM, 2010 WL 11520180 (S.D. Fla. 

May 4, 2010) ..............................................................................................................................7 

Arugu v. City of Plantation, 

No. 09-61618-CIV, 2010 WL 2609394 (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2010) ............................................7 

Bozeman v. Port-O-Tech Corp., 

No. 07-60569-CIV, 2008 WL 2690797 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2008) ..............................................8 

Brown v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 

No. 13-81192-CIV, 2014 WL 235455 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2014) ...............................................6 

Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 

17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................8 

Florida v. United States, 

No. 3:21cv1066/TKW/ZCB, 2022 WL 4021934 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2022) ..........................2, 8 

Hankerson v. Fort Lauderdale Scrap Inc., 

No. 15-60785-CIV-ZLOCH, 2016 WL 7497570 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2016) ...............................7 

Hickey v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 

No. 14-CV-60542, 2014 WL 7495780 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2014) .............................................6 

Home Design Servs., Inc. v. W. Gargas Constr., Inc., 

No. 3:08cv244/MCR/EMT, 2009 WL 3190462 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2009) .................................7 

In re Willingham, 

No. 3:11-ap-00269-JAF, 2014 WL 3697556 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. July 18, 2014) .......................9 

Johnson v. Mortham, 

164 F.R.D. 571 (N.D. Fla. 1996) ...............................................................................................9 

Saadi v. Maroun, 

No. 8:07-cv-1976-SCB-JSS, 2021 WL 8650792 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2021) ............................7 

Sheets v. Sorrento Villas, Section 5, Ass’n, Inc., 

No. 8:15-cv-1674-T-30JSS, 2016 WL 11493316 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2016) .......................2, 7 

Sun Cap. Partners, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 

310 F.R.D. 523 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ................................................................................................6 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 3 of 16
iii 

Tillman v. Advanced Pub. Safety, Inc., 

No. 15-cv-81782-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2017 WL 679980 (S.D. Fla. 

Feb. 16, 2017) ........................................................................................................................5, 6 

Wurtz v. MSC Cruises, S.A., 

No. 18-62547-CIV-COOKE/HUNT, 2019 WL 13237598 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 

2019) ..........................................................................................................................................7 

Other Authorities 

Savencia, S.A., Corporate Governance, https://www.savenciafromagedairy.com/en/corporate-governance/ (last visited January 20, 2023) .......................4, 5 

Savencia, S.A., Worldwide Presence, https://www.savenciafromagedairy.com/en/worldwide-presence/ (last visited January 20, 2023) .............................4 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 4 of 16
1 

Plaintiff Zausner Foods Corp. (“Plaintiff” or “Zausner”), pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26.1 of the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, 

hereby moves this Court for a protective order to protect two officers of Zausner’s indirect parent 

company—Alex Bongrain (an apex witness who was already deposed) and Pierre Ragnet (who 

was already deposed)—from being compelled to travel from their homes in France and Belgium 

to appear for unnecessary, cumulative, unduly burdensome, and harassing in-person depositions 

in the United States. In support of this motion, Zausner states the following: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

As Defendants themselves have repeatedly argued to this Court (see, e.g., ECF Nos. 21, 

22, 23), the facts underlying this action overlap considerably with the claims and defenses asserted 

in ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia, SA, No. 1:19-cv-00731-GWB-CJB (D. Del.) (the “Related Delaware 

Action”). Zausner originally pursued these claims against Defendants as part of the Related 

Delaware Action but was forced to refile its claims here after Defendants were held not subject to 

personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware.1 Discovery in the Related Delaware Action has 

been underway for several years, and Alex Bongrain and Pierre Ragnet have already sat for allday, in-person depositions in the Related Delaware Action, under examination by the same lead 

counsel representing Defendants in this case.2

Defendants contend that this case “involv[es] the same facts, claims, and defenses moving 

forward” in the Related Delaware Action. ECF No. 21 ¶ 14 (Defendants’ Motion to Stay). 

1 ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia SA, No. 19-cv-00731-GWB-CJB, ECF No. 222 (Mar. 25, 2022) 

(“Memorandum Order”). 

2

See Declaration of Margot G. Bloom (“Bloom Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-9; see also ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia 

SA, No. 19-cv-00731-GWB-CJB, ECF No. 233 (June 6, 2022) (“Notice to Take Deposition of 

Alex Bongrain, Tom Swartele, and Pierre Ragnet on September 16, 20 and 22, filed by Atlantic 

Ventures Corp., ECB USA, Inc.”). 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 5 of 16
2 

Nevertheless, even though Messrs. Bongrain and Ragnet have already been deposed by the same 

counsel in the Related Delaware Action, Defendants are now seeking to compel these individuals 

to travel from their homes in France and Belgium to the United States so they can sit for 

unnecessary, duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing second depositions in this action. 

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court should not permit this. As a threshold matter, 

Alex Bongrain is an “apex” witness who sits at the very top of Plaintiff’s indirect parent company, 

and Defendants have not established the need for such an “apex” deposition, especially with their 

counsel having deposed him comprehensively already in the Related Delaware Action. Moreover, 

Plaintiff will stipulate and agree that deposition testimony taken from Messrs. Bongrain and 

Ragnet in the Related Delaware Action may be treated as though it was taken in the present action 

as well, which eliminates any legitimate reason why these individuals should be subjected to the 

“annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” of a second deposition. 

Sheets v. Sorrento Villas, Section 5, Ass’n, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-1674-T-30JSS, 2016 WL 11493316, 

at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2016) (citation omitted). It certainly eliminates any credible argument 

for insisting the witnesses need to travel to the United States for all-day depositions, as opposed to 

any supplemental questions being asked through a narrow deposition via written questions under 

Rule 31, or in a short, time-limited remote deposition via video. See Florida v. United States, No. 

3:21cv1066/TKW/ZCB, 2022 WL 4021934, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2022). For these reasons, as 

set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order should be granted. 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 6 of 16
3 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. The Related Delaware Action and Its Overlap with the Present Litigation 

As set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff Zausner is a food production company that in 2014 

sold its cheese distribution business, Schratter Foods, Incorporated (“SFI”),3 to a pair of companies 

owned and controlled by a notorious French family, the Blandins. See ECF No. 1-2 (Complaint). 

The Blandins proceeded to run this previously respectable business into bankruptcy. See id.

Zausner is bringing claims against the Blandins—as well as their associate, Arno Leoni, and yetto-be-identified co-conspirators—because these individuals undertook a scheme to loot the assets 

of SFI at the direct expense of Zausner, which is still owed $6.1 million in deferred purchase price 

payments for the sale of SFI. See id. The Blandins and Leoni effected this scheme via their control 

of several corporate entities, including ECB USA, Inc., Atlantic Ventures, Corp., G.I.E. C2B, and 

SFI itself. See id.

As set forth in the parties’ prior submissions to this Court, allegations regarding the 

Blandins’ and Leoni’s conduct are also at issue in the Related Delaware Action, which has been 

pending since 2018. See, e.g., ECF No. 21 ¶ 14 (Defendants arguing that this case “involv[es] the 

same facts, claims, and defenses moving forward” in the Related Delaware Action); ECF 

No. 22 ¶ 1 (Defendants asserting that this action and another pending action “stem[] from the same 

facts and transactions” as the “Delaware Action”). The corporate entities that the Blandins and 

Leoni used to carry out their misconduct are parties in the Related Delaware Action, and the 

3

 Zausner is asserting these claims both in its own right and as successor-in-interest to ZNHC, Inc., 

an entity which merged into Zausner and, as such, no longer exists as a separate entity. See ECF 

No. 1-2 (Complaint). 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 7 of 16
4 

specific claims asserted in this action were originally asserted in the Related Delaware Action, 

prior to the Blandins and Leoni being dismissed from that action for lack of personal jurisdiction.4

B. Alex Bongrain, Pierre Ragnet, and their Prior Depositions 

Alex Bongrain is the Chairman of non-party Savencia SA (“Savencia”),5 which is the 

indirect parent company of not just Plaintiff Zausner, but also the entire Savencia corporate 

family—a worldwide network of food services companies with approximately 22,000 employees.6

Pierre Ragnet is a Deputy Director of non-party Savencia, and formerly the Head of U.S. Cheese 

Activities for Savencia.7 Both Mr. Bongrain and Mr. Ragnet have already been comprehensively 

deposed in the Related Delaware Action.8 Alex Bongrain was deposed in France, in person, on 

September 16, 2022. Pierre Ragnet was deposed in France, in person, on September 22, 2022. 

Both depositions lasted the entire day and were taken by the same lead counsel representing 

Defendants in this case. See Bloom Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. 

On November 30, 2022, just two months after taking these all-day depositions in the 

Related Delaware Action, Defendants served Plaintiff with notices of deposition in the present 

action, demanding that Messrs. Bongrain and Ragnet appear a second time for in-person 

depositions in Florida. Plaintiff Zausner offered to stipulate and agree that the deposition 

transcripts from the Related Delaware Action could be treated as though taken in this action, but 

Defendants refused that offer. See Bloom Decl. ¶ 11. 

4

See ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia SA, No. 19-cv-00731-GWB-CJB, ECF No. 222 (Mar. 25, 2022) 

(“Memorandum Order”). 

5

See Bloom Decl. ¶ 6; see also Savencia, S.A., Corporate Governance, https://www.savenciafromagedairy.com/en/corporate-governance/ (last visited January 20, 2023). 

6

See Bloom Decl. ¶ 5; Savencia, S.A., Worldwide Presence, https://www.savenciafromagedairy.com/en/worldwide-presence/ (last visited January 20, 2023). 

7

See Bloom Decl. ¶ 7. 

8

See Bloom Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; see also ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia SA, No. 19-cv-00731-GWB-CJB, 

ECF No. 233 (June 6, 2022) (“Notice to Take Deposition of Alex Bongrain, Tom Swartele, and 

Pierre Ragnet on September 16, 20 and 22, filed by Atlantic Ventures Corp., ECB USA, Inc.”). 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 8 of 16
5 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

“Under Rule 26(c)(1), ‘[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move 

for a protective order . . . to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, 

or undue burden or expense.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party seeking a protective order must 

demonstrate good cause for the protection sought. Good cause has been defined as a sound basis 

or legitimate need to take judicial action.” Tillman v. Advanced Pub. Safety, Inc., No. 15-cv81782-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2017 WL 679980, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2017) (alteration 

in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, where the proponent of 

discovery seeks to depose a “high-ranking corporate officer,” the burden is on the proponent to 

“establish that the executive: (1) has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand knowledge of the facts at 

issue; and (2) that other less intrusive means of discovery, such as interrogatories and depositions 

of other employees, have been exhausted without success. Moreover, the party seeking the 

deposition of the high-ranking official has the burden to show that the deposition is necessary.” 

Id. (citations omitted). 

IV. ARGUMENT 

A. Defendants Cannot Carry their Burden of 

Proving an Apex Deposition of Mr. Bongrain Is Necessary 

As set forth above, Alex Bongrain is the Chairman of Plaintiff Zausner’s indirect parent 

company, non-party Savencia, and oversees a worldwide network of food services companies with 

approximately 22,000 employees. See supra at 3-4. There is no Savencia officer who is more 

highly ranked than Alex Bongrain.9 “Courts have generally restricted parties from deposing highranking officials because (by virtue of their position) they are vulnerable to numerous, repetitive, 

9

See Bloom Decl. ¶ 6; see also Savencia, S.A., Corporate Governance, https://www.savenciafromagedairy.com/en/corporate-governance/ (last visited January 20, 2023). 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 9 of 16
6 

harassing, and abusive depositions, and therefore need some measure of protection from the 

courts.” Tillman, 2017 WL 679980, at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Brown v. 

Branch Banking & Tr. Co., No. 13-81192-CIV, 2014 WL 235455, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2014)). 

In order to depose a high-ranking corporate official like Mr. Bongrain, the burden is on Defendants 

to establish that such person “(1) has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand knowledge of the facts at 

issue; and (2) that other less intrusive means of discovery, such as interrogatories and depositions 

of other employees, have been exhausted without success.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Hickey 

v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., No. 14-CV-60542, 2014 WL 7495780, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2014)). 

Here, Defendants are incapable of carrying that burden because their counsel has already 

taken a full-day deposition of Mr. Bongrain in the Related Delaware Action, and Plaintiff Zausner 

has offered to agree and stipulate that the deposition transcripts from the Related Delaware Action, 

including Mr. Bongrain’s, can be used in the present action as if taken in this case. Moreover, 

Defendants served the notice of deposition for Mr. Bongrain before receiving responses to any 

other discovery requests served in this action, and before soliciting the deposition testimony of 

any other witnesses in this action. “[E]ven when a high-ranking official of a corporation does have 

direct knowledge of the facts, it is inappropriate to compel his or her deposition without first 

deposing lesser-ranking employees who have more direct knowledge of the facts at issue.” Sun 

Cap. Partners, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 310 F.R.D. 523, 528 (S.D. Fla. 2015); see also

Brown, 2014 WL 235455, at *3 (holding plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving the need 

for an apex deposition, especially where “Plaintiffs have yet to take any [other] discovery”). As a 

result of the above, Defendants cannot credibly argue that a second deposition of Mr. Bongrain 

would yield “unique, non-repetitive” information that is not already known to them. See Sun Cap. 

Partners, 310 F.R.D. at 527. Accordingly, because it is impossible for Defendants to carry their 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 10 of 16
7 

burden of proving the necessity of an apex deposition, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court 

enter a protective order protecting Mr. Bongrain from being compelled to appear for deposition in 

this action. 

B. Compelling Alex Bongrain and Pierre Ragnet to Sit for Second 

Depositions Would Be Cumulative, Unduly Burdensome, and Harassing 

In addition to the argument above, Plaintiff Zausner is entitled to a protective order 

precluding the depositions of both Mr. Bongrain and Mr. Ragnet in this action because they have 

already been deposed in the Related Delaware Action, and courts routinely enter protective orders 

to protect parties and witnesses from the “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 

or expense” of being deposed for a second time. Sheets, 2016 WL 11493316, at *1-2 (granting 

protective order to prevent second deposition) (citation omitted); Wurtz v. MSC Cruises, S.A., No. 

18-62547-CIV-COOKE/HUNT, 2019 WL 13237598, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2019) (same); 

Hankerson v. Fort Lauderdale Scrap Inc., No. 15-60785-CIV-ZLOCH, 2016 WL 7497570, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2016) (same); Home Design Servs., Inc. v. W. Gargas Constr., Inc., No. 

3:08cv244/MCR/EMT, 2009 WL 3190462, at *4-5 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2009) (same); Saadi v. 

Maroun, No. 8:07-cv-1976-SCB-JSS, 2021 WL 8650792, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2021) (same); 

Arugu v. City of Plantation, No. 09-61618-CIV-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM, 2010 WL 11520180, at 

*2 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2010) (same); see also Arugu v. City of Plantation, No. 09-61618-CIV, 2010 

WL 2609394, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2010) (reasoning that policy considerations dictate against 

allowing a deponent to be re-deposed because “witnesses would be inconvenienced more and 

discovery would become more expensive”). 

Defendants have represented to this Court that this case “involv[es] the same facts, claims, 

and defenses moving forward” in the Related Delaware Action. ECF No. 21 ¶ 14 (Defendants’ 

Motion to Stay). Therefore, through the depositions in the Related Delaware Action, Defendants 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 11 of 16
8 

(and the same counsel) have already had the opportunity to depose Messrs. Bongrain and Ragnet 

fully on any issues that they contend are relevant to this action. See supra at 3-4. Nevertheless, 

Defendants are now seeking to compel these individuals to undertake burdensome travel from their 

homes in France and Belgium to the United States so they can sit for duplicative, in-person 

depositions in this action as well. See id.

Plaintiff Zausner is prepared to stipulate and agree that transcripts of the witnesses’ 

depositions from the Related Delaware Action may be treated as though they were taken in the 

present action. This stipulation would eliminate the need for duplicative, cumulative, burdensome, 

and expensive re-depositions of the noticed witnesses in the present action. See Bozeman v. PortO-Tech Corp., No. 07-60569-CIV, 2008 WL 2690797, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2008) (holding 

defendants were not entitled to depose witness for a second time where defendants failed to 

demonstrate they were unable to address all relevant topics at the first deposition, or that the 

information they intended to solicit in second deposition could not be obtained by less burdensome 

means). Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a protective order 

protecting Mr. Bongrain and Mr. Ragnet from being compelled to appear for depositions in this 

action. 

C. In the Alternative, Defendants Should Be Permitted 

Only to Take Depositions of Messrs. Bongrain or Ragnet by 

Written Questions under Rule 31, or any Supplemental Deposition(s) 

Should be Severely Time-Limited and Conducted via Remote Video 

A court may enter an order directing that a witness may only be deposed via written 

questions pursuant to Rule 31. See, e.g., Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1423 

(11th Cir. 1994) (affirming “sua sponte ruling of the district court, pursuant to Rule 31, that the 

plaintiffs may depose [certain witnesses] only by written questions”). A court also has broad 

discretion to restrict the duration, location, and circumstances under which a deposition occurs, in 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 12 of 16
9 

order to protect a witness from undue burden, expense, or annoyance. Florida, 2022 WL 4021934, 

at *5 (entering protective order that limited the maximum duration of witness’s deposition and 

required the deposition to be conducted at a location that was convenient for the witness). This 

includes directing that a deposition should take place via videoconference. See generally In re 

Willingham, No. 3:11-ap-00269-JAF, 2014 WL 3697556, at *4 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. July 18, 2014) 

(“[C]ourts retain substantial discretion to designate the site of a deposition, and presumptions as 

to where the deposition should take place are merely decisional rules that facilitate the 

determination when other relevant factors do not favor one side over the other. Moreover, ample 

case law recognizes that a videoconference deposition can be an adequate substitute for an inperson deposition, particularly when significant expenses are at issue.”) (internal citation omitted). 

A court may also limit the scope of the questions to be asked during any examination. See, e.g., 

Johnson v. Mortham, 164 F.R.D. 571 (N.D. Fla. 1996). 

Here, even if Defendants could demonstrate a need to depose Alex Bongrain and Pierre 

Ragnet a second time in connection with this action (they cannot), Defendants should not be 

permitted to harass the witnesses by compelling them to travel from France and Belgium to the 

United States and testify on matters they have already been extensively deposed on by the same 

counsel in the Related Delaware Action. Accordingly and in the alternative, if the Court does not 

preclude the depositions of Alex Bongrain and Pierre Ragnet in their entirety, Plaintiff respectfully 

requests that the Court enter an order that limits the scope of any supplemental examination to 

issues uniquely relevant to this action that were not and could not have been addressed during the 

witnesses’ all-day depositions in the Related Delaware Action, and then either provides that (i) the 

witnesses may only be deposed via written questions pursuant to Rule 31, or, by way of further 

alternative, (ii) the witnesses may each be deposed for no more than one hour, with such deposition 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 13 of 16
10 

taking place remotely via video, so as to protect the witnesses from being compelled to undertake, 

costly, time-consuming, and unduly burdensome overseas travel in order to answer supplemental 

questions after already being previously deposed. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Zausner respectfully submits that the instant motion for 

protective order should be granted, and the Court should enter the proposed order submitted 

herewith protecting Alex Bongrain and Pierre Ragnet from being compelled to appear for 

unnecessary, unduly burdensome and harassing second depositions in connection with this action. 

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 14 of 16
11 

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3), counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred with all parties or 

non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve 

the issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so because they oppose the relief sought. 

Dated: January 20, 2023

By: /s/ David W. Marston Jr. 

David W. Marston Jr. 

Florida Bar No. 111636 

Email: david.marston@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305.415.3303 

eFacsimile: 877.432.9652 

Troy S. Brown (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: troy.brown@morganlewis.com 

Margot G. Bloom (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: margot.bloom@morganlewis.com 

Su Jin Kim (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: su.kim@morganlewis.com 

Brian Morris (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Email: brian.morris@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1700 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 

Telephone: 215.963.5214 

eFacsimile: 215.963.5001 

Counsel for Plaintiff Zausner Foods Corp.

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 15 of 16
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 20, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is 

being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the Service List in the 

manner specified, either via transmission or Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or 

in some other authorized manner for those counsel or pro se parties who are not authorized to 

receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

/s/ David W. Marston, Jr.

David W. Marston, Jr. 

SERVICE LIST 

Joel S. Magolnick, Esq. 

Marko & Magolnick, P.A. 

3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue 

Miami, FL 33129 

Telephone: 305.285.2000 

Facsimile: 305.285.5555 

John E. Kirkpatrick 

John E. Kirkpatrick & Associates 

1242 SW 18th Street 

Miami, FL 33145-1632 

Telephone: 305.285.4393 

kirkpatrick@mm-pa.com

Counsel for Defendants

Via CM/ECF

Case 1:22-cv-22660-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 16 of 16