`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`*
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO. 21-2242
`
`SECTION “T” (2)
`
`
`
`
`
` *
`
` *
`
`G.K.
`
`VERSUS
`
`D.M.
`
`
`ORDER AND REASONS
`
`Pending before me is Plaintiff G.K.’s Motion to Compel In Person Depositions In
`
`Poland. ECF No. 329. Intervenors filed an Opposition Memorandum and Plaintiff filed a
`
`Reply. ECF Nos. 334, 343. No party requested oral argument, and the Court agrees that
`
`oral argument is unnecessary. Having considered the record, the submissions and
`
`arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel In Person
`
`Depositions in Poland is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
`
`Plaintiff originally filed suit alleging that Defendant falsely represented his HIV
`
`status to induce Plaintiff to engage in unprotected sexual relations and infected him with
`
`HIV after a sexual encounter in New Orleans on September 1, 2019. ECF No. 3, ¶¶ 5-13,
`
`at 8-9. The court entered a default judgment on November 21, 2023. ECF Nos. 236, 273.
`
`Intervenors, as former counsel, filed suit asserting a statutory lien and privilege on any
`
`recovery. ECF No. 249. By Order and Reasons dated April 25, 2024, this Court denied
`
`Plaintiff’s request to stay this matter and held that depositions may proceed in accordance
`
`with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with Mr. Dodson’s deposition scheduled as his
`
`medical treatment allows. ECF No. 325.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02242-GGG-DPC Document 345 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`Plaintiff now contends that he issued notices of deposition in compliance with the
`
`April 25, 2024 Order and filed this motion to compel Mr. Dodson and Ms. Bergeron to
`
`appear for deposition in Poland. ECF No. 329. Plaintiff argues that it would impose a
`
`financial burden on him to travel to New Orleans and he is concerned about his health
`
`given potential COVID-19 exposure and his HIV status. ECF No. 329-1 at 1-2. In
`
`opposition, Intervenors argue that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff has not
`
`complied with Rule 37 and the proper location for their in-person deposition is in New
`
`Orleans, not Poland, which has no connection to the matter, poses significant logistical
`
`hurdles, and lacks necessary safeguards to ensure conformity of the deposition with the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 334. In Reply, Plaintiff reiterates the same
`
`arguments raised in his original memorandum, with additional detail. ECF No. 343-1.
`
`This Court has previously rejected Plaintiff’s alternative request to proceed with
`
`depositions in Poland. ECF No. 325. Plaintiff filed suit in this venue and has previously
`
`traveled to New Orleans for necessary court matters, including an evidentiary hearing
`
`before the undersigned. ECF No. 103. Plaintiff’s new, conclusory assertions of undue
`
`financial burden and health concerns fail to justify reconsideration of my April 25, 2024
`
`decision. Moreover, Plaintiff’s former attorneys are New Orleans-based attorneys, he
`
`engaged them to represent him in a New Orleans-based tort matter, and all relevant
`
`activities occurred in New Orleans. The intervenors do not live or work in Poland or have
`
`any other connection with that country whatsoever. Plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily move
`
`to Poland during the pendency of this proceeding does not justify forcing his two New
`
`Orleans-based attorneys to travel to Poland so that he may conduct their depositions in this
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-02242-GGG-DPC Document 345 Filed 06/05/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`fee dispute. If Plaintiff wants to depose Mr. Dodson and Ms. Bergeron, he must conduct
`
`those depositions in New Orleans, Louisiana. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel In Person Depositions in
`
`Poland (ECF No. 329) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of June, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
` DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLERK TO NOTIFY VIA E-MAIL
`ASSOCIATED WITH EDSS FILINGS
`AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL:
`Plaintiff G.K.
`
`
`
`3
`
`5th
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
