Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Wills Massalon
-
Answer | Filed: May 17, 2024 | Entered: May 17, 2024 South Carolina Public Service Authority v. CBD Resources, Inc.
Contract: Other | South Carolina
Answer to Complaint
ANSWER to Complaint by CBD Resources, Inc..(Massalon, John)
-
Motion | Filed: May 17, 2024 | Entered: May 17, 2024 South Carolina Public Service Authority v. CBD Resources, Inc.
Contract: Other | South Carolina
Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by CBD Resources, Inc.. Response to Motion due by 5/31/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit A to Memo- Coal Purchase Agreement, # 3 Exhibit B to Memo- Affidavit of Charles Collins)No proposed order.(Massalon, John)
-
Order | Filed: May 16, 2024 | Entered: May 16, 2024 Universal North America Insurance Company v. Shuler et al
Insurance | South Carolina
Order on Motion for Protective Order
TEXT ORDER denying 28 Plaintiff Universal North American Insurance Company's ("Universal") Motion for Protective Order Regarding 30(B)(6) Deposition. (DE 28.) This matter arises out of a complaint filed by Defendant Tyler Shuler ("Shuler") in state court against Defendant Remington Prince ("Prince"). The state court complaint involves an incident in which Prince allegedly struck and caused severe injuries to Shuler. The issue here is a coverage matter on an insurance policy issued by Universal. The insurance policy issued to Defendant Prince covered property in Berkeley County, South Carolina. The events of the underlying case occurred in Berkeley County, South Carolina, and Universal filed this action in the District Court of South Carolina-Charleston Division.
To that end, counsel for Defendant Shuler noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Universal at Shuler's counsel's office in Charleston, South Carolina. (DE 29, p. 2.) Universal opposes the location for the deposition, arguing "[t]he deposition of a corporation by its agents and officers should ordinarily be taken at its principal place of business." (DE 28, p. 4; citing 8A Charles Alan Wright, et al., 8A Federal Practice & Procedure § 2112 (3d ed.) Universal moves for a protective order to set its 30(b)(6) deposition at its principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida. (DE 28.) In the alternative, Universal requests that the Court:
permit the deposition to go forward by remote means with Universal's 30(b)(6) designee(s) permitted to remain at their principal place of business. In the additional alternative, Universal requests that the noticing defendant pay the reasonable expenses incurred in bringing any 30(b)(6) designees to South Carolina, including reasonable living expenses incurred on the day(s) required for testimony.
(DE 28, p. 1.) Despite the presumption that the deposition of a corporation should take place at its principal place of business, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the District of South Carolina do not mandate the same for corporate plaintiffs. That said, Rules 30(b) and 26(c) act in concert, as "the examining party may set the place for the deposition of another party wherever he or she wishes subject to the power of the court to grant a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(B) designating a different place." McClurg v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-711-MGL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204995, at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2012) (citing 8A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2112 (3d ed. 2012). Courts ordinarily presume that a plaintiff may be deposed in the judicial district where the action was brought, given that the plaintiff, in selecting the forum, has effectively consented to participation in legal proceedings there. See 8A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2112.
Accordingly, the Court finds the circumstances of this case (i.e., the fact that the insurance policy Plaintiff issued to Defendant Prince covered property in Berkeley County, South Carolina, the events of the underlying case occurred in Berkeley County, South Carolina, and Plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of South Carolina-Charleston Division) counsel against Universal's preferred location. Universal has also designated one 30(b)(6) witness while Defendants Prince and Schuler work and live in Berkeley County, South Carolina. If Defendants Prince or Schuler wish to participate in the deposition, they would need to pay to travel to Florida. Given Universal's corporate status, the least burdensome and least costly path forward for all involved is to require Universal's one representative to travel to Charleston for the 30(b)(6) deposition rather than requiring one or more individual non-corporate parties to travel to Florida. Absent some showing of an undue burden, expense, or otherwise by Universal, the Court declines to require the deposition to go forward by remote means or for the noticing defendant to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in bringing any 30(b)(6) designees to South Carolina.
Signed by the Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 5/16/2024. (lgib, )
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login