Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 89 Motion for Protective Order. Having considered the emergency motion for a protective order of Defendant Massachusetts General Brigham Incorporated ("MGB"), D. 89, MGB's memorandum in support of the same, D. 90, and the opposition of Plaintiff Deon Santos, D. 92-93, the Court DENIES the motion.Background. Santos filed this lawsuit against several defendants including MGB on June 28, 2024, alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Mass. Gen. L. c. 272, § 98, based on alleged racial discrimination in the administration of the national kidney transplant waiting list. D. 1. On October 8, 2025, the Court (Talwani, J.) entered a scheduling order that, in relevant part, stated "[a]ll depositions, other than expert depositions, must be completed by October 2, 2026." D. 57 at 2. That order also set April 30, 2027 as the deadline for dispositive motions. Id.
On September 18, 2026, months before the April 2027 deadline, MGB moved for summary judgment. D. 82. Three days later, Defendant United Network for Organ Sharing noticed Santos's Rule 30 deposition for September 29, 2026. D. 90-6. The same day, Santos sent four notices for depositions. See D. 90-2; D. 90-3; D. 90-4; D. 90-5. One notice requires MGB to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee and appear at Santos's counsel's office in El Segundo, California for an October 1, 2026 deposition. D. 90-2. That notice also lists sixteen topics for the deposition. Id. at 7-8. Another one of Santos's notices sets the remote deposition of Dr. Anand Dighe, a non-party, for October 2, 2026. D. 90-3.
In response to Santos's notices, MGB filed the present motion seeking a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). D. 89 at 1. The Court ordered Santos to respond, D. 91, and he did, arguing that MGB has not demonstrated good cause for a protective order, among other procedural shortcomings with MGB's recent filings, D. 92 at 5-11.
Discussion. "Discovery procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seek to further the interests of justice by minimizing surprise at trial and ensuring wide-ranging discovery of information." Servicios Funerarios GG, S.A. de C.V. v. Advent Int'l Corp., No. 23-cv-10684-IT, 2024 WL 3316100, at *2 (D. Mass. July 5, 2024) (citation omitted). "To that end, Rule 26(b) permits 'discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The Court considers several factors in weighing proportionality including: "the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Rule 26(c)(1) provides that "[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Furthermore, Rule 26 "confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).
A showing of good cause "is required to justify any protective order," and the burden of demonstrating good cause rests with the party seeking a protective order. SEC v. Lemelson, 334 F.R.D. 359, 361 (D. Mass. 2020) (citing Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1986)). "While there are circumstances under which an order to vacate a notice of taking a deposition may be appropriate, such an order is generally regarded by the courts as both unusual and unfavored in view of the general philosophy of full discovery of relevant facts." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
MGB first argues that Santos's notice is improper because the topics seek information from Mass General Hospital ("MGH") which is a distinct legal entity and subsidiary of named defendant, MGB. D. 90 at 6-8. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), a "designee must be able to testify on behalf of an organization about information known or reasonably available to the organization." ... (truncated)