United States District Court, Northern District of Tlinois

Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge George W. Lindberg than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5430 DATE 8/20/2003
CASE Richard Sharif vs, International Development Group
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢-g., Plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, und (b) state brielly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented. ]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due ___
Q) a Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for _at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continucd to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for} on at.
{8) Oo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0) FRCP41(a)(2).
ao [Other docket entry] Defendants’ motion for protective order is denicd. The court, sua sponte,
orders that the depositions of defendants take place in a country other than Saudi Arabia or the United
States agreed upon by plaintiff and defendants. Enter memorandum and order.
(11) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
Number

No notices required sunpor of ices

AUG 2 1 2003

date dockyled

Notices mailed hy judge’s stat.

Notified counsel by telephone,

Y | Pockeling to mail notices

Mail AO 450 form.

L¥nog joluisia sn

Copy t judge/magistrate judge.

Rtn Wd OZ St¥ Eo

courtroom
SLB deputy’s EFREROS ME RCE RTE!
Dabdldmne reveived in

mailing deputy initials

central Clerk's Office



Outs Reuma e9,

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

Richard Sharif,

Plaintiff,
No. 02 C 5430
-vs-
Senior Judge George W. Lindberg
International Development Group, Co., Ltd,
et al.,

ee

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants have moved for a protective order staying all discovery until after the court
decides defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, and requiring
that all depositions of defendants take place in Saudi Arabia.

This judge stays discovery for pending dispositive motions only in the rarest of cases.
Defendants have not presented a set of facts on which a stay of discovery is warranted, so the
request to stay discovery is denied.

Defendants’ request that this court issuc a protective order for all depositions of
defendants to take place in Saudi Arabia is also denied.

“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, et al., 2000 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 264 at 8 (S,D.N.Y.). However, this presumption can be
overcome where “unusual circumstances or principles of justice require the court to deviate from
the general rule.” Sears v, American Entertainment Group, [ne., 1995 U.S, Dist, LEXTS 1754 at

4, The general rule can be overcome where factors of cost, convenience, and litigation efficiency

4



02 C 5430

militate in favor of holding the depositions at another location, See Devlin, 2000 U.S, Dist.
LEXIS 264 at 9.

Defendants ask that the general rule be applied and that their depositions take place in
Saudi Arabia. Plaintiff seeks to hold the depositions in the United States, specifically Chicago,
Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the court believes that the depositions of defendants
should be held in a third country, other than Saudi Arabia or the United States, agreed upon by
the parties. In light of the October 1, 2003 close of discovery, the depositions should take place
as soon as possible, The expeditiousness with which counsel and the deponents can get into a
country should be considered in selecting the location of the depositions,

ORDERED: Defendants’ motion for a protective order is denied. The court, sua sponte,
orders that the depositions of defendants take place in a country other than Saudi Arabia or the
United States agreed upon by plaintiff and defendants

ENTER,

GEORGE W. LINDBERG
AUG 20 2003 Senior U.S. District Judge
DATED: ae