## Facts

- Jorge Delgado, a Peruvian national, worked as a crewmember aboard ships operated by Magical Cruise Co.
- In April 2014, while working aboard ship, Delgado suffered a herniated-disc injury that he alleged was caused by Magical Cruise’s negligence.
- Delgado was medically removed from service, returned to Peru, and obtained medical treatment there through providers associated with Magical Cruise.
- Delgado asserted that a physician declared him at maximum medical improvement on February 23, 2015.
- Delgado filed suit against Magical Cruise in December 2015 seeking damages for his alleged injury.
- The parties held an initial case management meeting on May 11, 2016, and the discovery deadline was set for June 5, 2017.
- Despite the lengthy discovery period, neither party deposed the other for much of the case.
- On May 15, 2017, Delgado served a notice setting his own deposition for May 25, 2017, to be taken remotely via Skype from Peru. His counsel stated that visa difficulties and cost would likely prevent Delgado from appearing in Florida, making remote testimony necessary.
- Magical Cruise moved for a protective order and to quash the deposition notice, and also sought an order compelling Delgado to apply for a U.S. visa so he could appear in Florida.
- Delgado also served a notice setting Magical Cruise’s Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition for May 30, 2017, shortly before the discovery cutoff and without agreed scheduling.
- Magical Cruise filed a separate motion for a protective order and to quash the unilateral Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice.
- The court heard argument on the motions and considered the parties’ explanations for the late deposition activity, including Magical Cruise’s decision to wait until after mediation to decide whether to depose Delgado.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should enter a protective order or quash Delgado’s notice setting his own deposition to proceed remotely via Skype from Peru.
2. Whether the court should compel Delgado to apply for a U.S. visa to appear in Florida for deposition and related proceedings.
3. Whether good cause existed to quash or bar Delgado’s late, unilaterally scheduled Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition notice.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Magical Cruise’s motions for protective relief.
- The court allowed Delgado’s deposition to proceed by remote means (including Skype), subject to reasonable procedures to ensure the deposition could be fairly conducted.
- The court declined to compel Delgado to apply for a U.S. visa as a condition of proceeding with discovery.
- The court granted protective relief as to Delgado’s unilateral Rule 30(b)(6) notice and quashed the corporate representative deposition as noticed due to its timing and lack of coordinated scheduling near the close of discovery.

## Legal Principles

- A court may issue a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) upon a showing of good cause to protect a party from undue burden or expense arising from discovery.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) allows a deposition to be taken by telephone or other remote means by stipulation or court order; remote depositions may be appropriate when the deponent resides abroad and travel is difficult or uncertain.
- Courts have broad authority to manage discovery and enforce scheduling orders, including limiting late or disruptive discovery requests made near the deadline after prolonged inactivity.
- A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice must provide reasonable notice and be scheduled in a manner consistent with orderly discovery; when a party unilaterally sets a short-notice corporate deposition close to the discovery cutoff, a court may quash the notice to prevent unfair burden.
- Courts may be reluctant to require a party to take immigration-related steps during discovery when the outcome is uncertain and a remote deposition can provide meaningful discovery.

## Conclusion

In this discovery order, the court balanced fairness and practicality by permitting a foreign seaman to be deposed remotely from Peru, refusing to require him to pursue a U.S. visa during discovery, and protecting the defendant from a late, uncoordinated Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice served shortly before the discovery deadline.


Delgado v. Magical Cruise Co., Case No. 6:15-cv-2130-Orl-4aTBS (May 30, 2017)