plaintiff's document requests for citizenship and residency information, Sussman was only
willing to provide a copy of his Illinois driver’s license.

Nevertheless, Sussman submitted a letter from a psychotherapist indicating that he is
being treated for severe anxiety and depression, and that he “is not in a fit state for travel fora
minimum of three (3) months,” Based on this representation, the Court orders Sussman to
appear for his deposition by video conference. See Jn re Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Nos. C1V. A.
97-3829, 99-1888, 1999 WL 1124789, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 3, 1999) (allowing video conference
deposition), Sussman is ordered to cooperate fully with plaintiff in arranging the deposition,
including identifying a means by which he may be placed under oath by a person located in
Singapore, and arranging for electronic transmission of any documents plaintiff is unable to
produce prior to the deposition. See, e.g., Advani Enterprises, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds,
No. 95 C1Y, 4864 (CSH), 2000 WL 1568255, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2000) (requiring the
deponent to provide the court with a proposal for compliance with Rule 28(b), “which will
include necessarily a means by which to place the deponents under oath by a person located in
Egypt”); Jn re Central Gulf Lines, inc., 2001 WL 30675, at *1. The deposition must take place
no later than April 7, 2003.

CONCLUSION

or the reasons stated above, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents
(Docket Entry #17-1) is granted and Motion to Compel Deposition (Docket Entry #16-1) is
granted in part and denied in part. Sussman is ordered to pay plaintiff's costs in bringing the

Motion to Compel Production of Documents.



arrange a telephone or vidco conference deposition and to provide Sussman with all exhibits in
advance.

“[A]n examining party may set the place for the deposition of another party wherever he
wishes subject to the power of the court to grant a protective order under Rule 26(c)(2)
designating a difference place.” United States v. $160,066.98 from Bank of America, 202 I. R.D,
624, 627 (S.D, Cal. 2001) (quoting Farquhar v. Sheldon, 116 F.R.D, 70, 72 (E.D. Mich. 1987)).
The standard for entry of a protective order is “good cause”; that is, Sussman must show that he
will be subject to “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” if his
deposition proceeds in Chicago. Sears v. American Entertainment Group, Inc., No. 94 C 0165,
1995 WL 66411, at *1 (ND. TIL. Feb. 13, 1995) (citing Kasper v. Cooper Canada Lid,, 120
F.R.D. 58, 59 (N.D. IIL. 1988),

In responding to plaintiff's interrogatories, Sussman stated that he is a citizen of the
United States and that he resides in Chicago, Illinois. “As a general matter, there is a
presumption that a defendant . . . shall be deposed in the district where the deponent resides.”
Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union, Nos. 95 CTV. 0752 JFK JCF, 95
CIV, 10838 JFK JC, 2000 WL 28173, at *3 (S.D.N-Y. Jan. 14, 2000) (citing Bank of New York v.
Meridien BIAO Bank Tanzania Ltd, 171 F.R.D. 135, 155 (SDNY. 1997)). Sussman now
claims that he is living somewhere overseas. Significantly, however, he never amended his
discovery responses to reflect a new place of citizenship or residency, and he does not claim that
he no longer resides in Chicago, See Viacom Ine. v. Flyan, No. 96 C3 131, 1997 WL 97697, at
*L(N.D. IIL. Feb, 27, 1997) (quoting Queally v, Driscoll, No, 93 C7829, 1996 WI, 67282, at *6

(N.D. Ill. Jan, 12, 1996)) (“[a] person can have many residences . . -”). Tn fact, in responding to


Vlow Re Net

NAN R. NOLAN
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: February 25, 2003

as



Manaus sk

United States District Court, Northern District of INinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Maglstrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

Nan R. Nolan

CASE NUMBER

02 C 4408

DATE

2/25/2003

CASE Healthsouth vs. Sussman
[ TITLE
[bn the following hox (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintift, defendant, 3rd party plaintilf, and (b) slate briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

() oO Filed motion of | use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion duc

(3) oO Answer brief to motion duc . Reply to answer briefdue_

(4) ia) Ruling/Hearing on set for_ at

@) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] (set for/re-sct for) on_, ___set for at

(6) o Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at.

(7) oO Trial[sct for/re-set for]on____ at.

() o [BenclyJury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at__

(9) ia ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrcement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP4}{a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(aio 6d [Other docket entry] Status hearing held. For the reasons staled in the attached memorandum

opinion and order, Plaintiffs motion to compel the production of documents is granted [17-1]. Plaintiff's
motion to compel deposition of Paul Sussman is granted in part and denied in part [16-1]. Discovery cut-
off is extended to April 30, 2003. Status hearing sct for May 6, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order.

dl)

No natives required, advised in open court,

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Number

J

No notices required.
4 rnb of nous

FEB 7 62003

fedockews

C

dockcting dajaty iniake

Novices tailed by judge's stat.

Natitied counset by telephone,

Y¥ | Docketing w mail notices.

Mail AQ 480 form.

Copy to judge/magistiate judge

xe mailed potice
courtroam

cay deputy’s
initials,

Date/lime received in
central Clerk's Office,

eral leptin



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,

FEB 2 2003

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No, 02 C 4408
PAUL SUSSMAN, individually,

DANIEL SVIHRA, individually, and

D. SVIHRA AND ASSOCIATES, LTD., an
Tilinois corporation,

wwe eee eee ve Sw

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

‘This matter is before the Court on plaintiff HealthSouth Corporation’s Motion to Compel
Production of Documents and Motion to Compel Deposition of Paul Sussman. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion to compel documents is granted and the motion to compel deposition
is granted in part and denied in part.

DISCUSSION
1. Motion to Compel Documents

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant Paul Sussman to produce documents responsive to its
First Request to Produce, which was served on September 24, 2002. Sussman did not respond to
the requests until three months later on December 24, 2002. Al that time, he objected to several
requests and indicated that he had no documents responsive to the remaining requests. Plaintiff

argues that Sussman waived his objections by failing to file them by October 24, 2002 as

required by Rule 34. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 (“{t]he party upon whom the request is served shall serve a



written response within 30 days after the service of the request”); Jones v, Ada S. McKinley
Community Services, No. 89 C 0319, 1989 WL 152352, at *4 (N_D. IIL. Nov, 28, 1989)
(“{fJailure to comply with the time limits amounts to an implied waiver of the objections”). The
Court necd not reach this issuc, however, because Sussman’s objections are without merit in any
event.

Sussman objects to requests 2, 13, 14 and 15 as an improper attempt to conduct a citation
to discover assets prior to judgment, Plaintiff argucs that the requests are all “relevant or
reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information concerning Sussman’s assets in the United
Slates, whether he is or has secreted those assets out of the United States, and whether [plaintiff]
has a good faith basis to seek attachment against those assets or the Trust Funds’ holdings.” Pl.
Reply, p. 4. This Court already declined to issue a protective order as to a third-party subpoena
seeking information on Sussman’s asscts. See Order of 9/4/02. For similar reasons, the Court
overrules Sussman’s objections to plaintiffs document requests. Sussman is ordered to produce
all responsive documents to all requests within fourtcen days.

2. Motion to Compel Deposition

Plaintiff next seeks to compel defendant Pau) Sussman to appear in Chicago for his
deposition. Sussman states that for the past several months he has been living outside the United
States and “has no immediate plans to return.” Def. Mem. 91-2. He thus moves for entry of a
protective order requiring the deposition to proceed overseas. He has offered to make himself
available for a video conference or telephone deposition in lieu of appearing in person. /d. 3-4.
Plaintiff argues that Sussman resides in Chicago and should be required to retum here for his

deposition. Plaintiff also claims that it would suffer undue burden and expense in having to