ORDER

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
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

ORDER

This cause came on, for consideration without oral argument on the following motions filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH THIRD SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (Doc. No. 62)

FILED: July 6,1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. No. 63)

FILED: July 6. 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part as set forth herein.

MOTION: DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL, (Doc. No. 64)

FILED: July 7, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein.

The difficulty shown in this case in arranging the deposition of a locally resident party is profoundly disturbing. It is obvious that the parties are on the opposite sides of an issue that has provoked profound disagreements throughout society. To the extent the parties have brought that disagreement to this Court for determination of legal rights, they are bound to follow the procedures and rules of the Court. Counsel are not excused from their professional obligations and duties of civility and courtesy because the issues of a case are volatile and the parties' positions are heartfelt.

The taking of a party's deposition and his production of documents or other objects should ordinarily take place on notice with no involvement by the Court. It is evident that counsel have failed meaningfully to comply with Rule 26(c), 37(a)(2) and Local Rule 3.01 (g) and they are all reprimanded accordingly. Counsel are admonished that future violations will result in the imposition of more severe sanctions.

As to the "merits" of the matters raised in the motions, Plaintiff has not shown any privilege or other basis for refusing to provide discovery. Plaintiff has had ample notice of Defendants' requests for production and the scheduling of his deposition. Defendants have not shown that a deposition extending four days is justified in this case. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows.

Plaintiff shall produce the requested documents and objects by July 13, 1998 and shall appear for deposition not later than July 20, 1998. The deposition is limited to 10 hours in duration.

Plaintiff is admonished that evasive or non responsive answers or any obstructive tactics may result in extension of the deposition and imposition of sanctions. Defendants are admonished that inquiry at the deposition is limited to matters relevant to the issues of this case or questions reasonably designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any misuse of the discovery processes may result in imposition of sanctions.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 8,1998.

DAVID BAKER <signed>
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Christopher F. Sapp
Lisa L. Hogreve