## Facts

- Avista Management, Inc. (doing business as Avista Plex, Inc.) sued Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company in a diversity insurance-coverage dispute in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, in consolidated proceedings.
- During discovery, Avista sought to take a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of Wausau.
- Counsel could not agree on where the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would take place.
- Avista filed a motion asking the court to designate the deposition location.
- The court viewed the dispute as another routine discovery logistics fight that should have been handled by counsel without requiring judicial time.

## Issues

1. Should the court grant a motion requesting that it designate the location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition when counsel cannot agree on a site?

## Decision

- The court **denied** Avista’s motion to designate the deposition location.
- Rather than selecting a location itself, the court ordered counsel to resolve the dispute through a single game of **rock, paper, scissors**.
- The order required counsel to meet at **4:00 p.m. on June 30, 2006** at a neutral site agreeable to both sides; if they could not agree, they were to meet on the front steps of the **Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602**.
- Each lawyer could bring one paralegal as an attendant and witness.
- The winner of the game could choose the deposition location, which had to be **somewhere in Hillsborough County**, and the deposition was to occur during **July 11–12, 2006**.
- If either side disputed the outcome, the order allowed an “appeal” by filing a notice, with a hearing set for **8:30 a.m. on July 7, 2006** before the assigned judge.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have broad discretion under Rules 26 and 30 to control discovery and set practical terms for depositions, including time and place, when parties reach an impasse.
- Courts may deny motions that seek judicial resolution of minor scheduling or location disputes and may direct counsel to use practical procedures to settle such matters.
- A district court may issue structured, nontraditional directives designed to conserve court resources while still ensuring discovery proceeds on set dates and within defined geographic limits.

## Conclusion

In this discovery order, the court refused to spend further judicial time selecting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition location, denied the plaintiff’s motion, and required counsel to decide the site by a single game of rock, paper, scissors—while still setting specific meeting instructions, deposition timing, and a county limit to keep discovery on track.


Avista Management, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co., 2006 WL 1562246, No. 6:05-CV-1430 (2006)