PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby moves for a Protective Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), saying:

1. Moving party has in good faith attempted to confer with attorney for Defendants in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action but has been unsuccessful.

2. Justice requires that Plaintiff be protected from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and undue burden and expense occasioned by the Subpoena Duces Tecum/Notice For Deposition requiring Plaintiff to appear for four days of deposition, starting July 7, 1998.

3. There are two motions pending before the Court which also render such a deposition untimely, namely, a Motion For Summary Judgment and a Motion To Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the deposition be held a reasonable time after the determination of the aforesaid motions and that the duration be no longer than is reasonable and fair.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., hereby attaches this Memorandum to the foregoing Motion for Protective Order in compliance with the Local Rules.

1. Movant's attorney tried unsuccessfully to discuss this matter with Mr. Torpy and has compiled with Local Rule 3.01 (g) as well as the requirements of Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The attorneys for both sides agreed at their Case Management meeting that it was inappropriate to conduct any discovery while the Motion To Dismiss filed by the Defendants was under consideration. The same reasoning would apply to the present situation where Plaintiff has a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim.

3. Defendants have notified this Court that there are no material issues of relevant facts to be determined with respect to the Complaint and thus Defendants must either recant that statement or delay all discovery with regard to the Complaint while their Motion for Summary Judgment is pending.

4. It is patently unreasonable, oppressive, expensive and burdensome to require Plaintiff to appear four days in a row at Mr. Torpy's office for his deposition.

WHEREFORE, the relief sought in the foregoing Motion For Protective Order should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
Florida Bar Number 0097823
Attorney for Meredith T. Raney, Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Vincent G. Torpy, Jr., Esquire 930 S. Harbor City Blvd. Suite 505, Melbourne, Florida 32901 this 4" day of July, 1998.
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Attorney