EFTA00187415¶
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA¶
NELSON SHANKS¶
Plaintiff,¶
CIVIL ACTION¶
LESLIE and ABIGAIL WEXNER, et al.¶
Defendants.¶
NO. 02-7671¶
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO QUASH NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS¶
Without any consultation with counsel for Defendants to find mutually acceptable dates and times, on August 27, 2003, Plaintiff Nelson Shanks provided notices to Defendants’ counsel of the oral depositions of Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Abigail Wexner and Leslie Wexner to be taken on September $ 9^{\text{th}} $ and $ 10^{\text{th}} $ , 2003 in the offices of Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., in Philadelphia, Pa.¶
As Plaintiff well knows, defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell reside in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and defendants Abigail and Leslie Wexner reside in New Albany, Ohio.¶
While Plaintiff may be permitted to designate his location of choice for the depositions, this Court has the power and duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to determine the most appropriate location for each deposition. See e.g., O’Connor . Trans Union Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6774 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 1998). This Court has previously determined “that as a general rule, if a deponent lives a substantial distance from the deposing party’s residence, the deposing party should be required to take the deposition at¶
PHLIT\454486\1¶
EFTA00187416¶
a location in the vicinity in which the deponent resides.” First Fidelity Bancorporation.¶
National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3367 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 1992).¶
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2), defendants seek an order that would protect them from the undue burden and expense of traveling to Philadelphia for these depositions; defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Mawell will submit to a deposition in the Virgin Islands; and defendants Abigail and Leslie Wexner seek an order that would protect them from being forced to travel from New Albany, Ohio to Philadelphia for their depositions.¶
Under the circumstances, the Notice served on August 27, 2003 requiring each of the defendants to fly to Philadelphia is unreasonable and unduly burdensome. As the Court well knows, the basis for asserting jurisdiction over these defendants does not include any instance when any of them visited Pennsylvania. It was Plaintiff who traveled to New York and Ohio in connection with this matter. Accordingly, if these depositions are to proceed, they should occur at the locations of the defendants. It is far less dislocating for Plaintiff’s lawyer to travel to take these depositions in the Virgin Islands and Ohio than it would be to force four people to take the time required to travel to Philadelphia.¶
Although Plaintiff had earlier expressed a commitment to working out a schedule that is convenient to all parties, Plaintiff has unilaterally scheduled the depositions with no regard to the inconvenience it may impose on the parties to be deposed. Such conduct is in direct contrast with the manner in which Defendants have attempted to depose Plaintiff.¶
PHLIT\454486\1¶
EFTA00187417¶
For example, Defendants noticed the deposition of Plaintiff Nelson Shanks for June 9, 2003. Immediately thereafter, Defendants agreed with Plaintiff to postpone that date so that the parties could come to a mutually agreeable date for the deposition.¶
Plaintiff still, nearly three months later, has yet to agree to a date in which Shanks can be deposed, but has instead unilaterally designated September 9th and 10th in Philadelphia as the time and place for Defendants’ depositions. Defendants object to these depositions being taken in Philadelphia given the difficulty for these individuals to make arrangements to be deposed miles away from their respective residences.¶
Based upon Plaintiff’s recent reluctance to discuss, much less honor, any mutual agreements, Defendants ask this Court to quash Plaintiff’s Notice of Depositions and grant this protective order, rescheduling the depositions for a date and time that is suitable for both the Defendants and Plaintiff, and relocating the depositions from Philadelphia to the U.S. Virgin Islands for Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell; and New Albany, Ohio for the Wexners.¶
Accordingly, this Court should grant Defendants’ motion for a protective order and quash the depositions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Abigail and Leslie Wexner, without prejudice to have them rescheduled at a convenient location.¶
CONCLUSION¶
For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant its Motion for a Protective Order or such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.¶
PHLIT\454486\1¶
EFTA00187418¶
Dated: September 5, 2003¶
J. Fox¶
Attorney Identification No. 15261¶
Christopher J. Guiton¶
Attorney Identification No. 89866¶
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP¶
One Logan Square¶
18th and Cherry Streets¶
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996¶
Attorneys for Defendants¶
PHLIT\454486\1¶
EFTA00187419¶
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶
I, Christopher J. Guiton, hereby certify that on this 5th day of September 2003, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order and accompanying Memorandum of Law to be served as follows:¶
VIA HAND DELIVERY¶
Jeffrey Hofferman, Esquire¶
Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C.¶
Four Penn Center, Suite 200¶
Philadelphia, PA 19103¶
(Attorney for Plaintiff)¶
Dated: September 5, 2003¶
By:¶
Christopher J. Guiton¶
PHLIT\454486\1¶