JW v. State 06 02 Plf’s Opposition to Pagliano’s Motion for Protective Order 01363
Number of Pages:4
Date Created:June 2, 2016
Date Uploaded to the Library:June 03, 2016
Autogenerated text from PDF
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 06/02/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 13-cv-1363 (EGS) PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION NON-PARTY DEPONENT BRYAN PAGLIANO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant the Court June 2016 minute order, respectfully submits this opposition Non-Party Deponent Bryan Pagliano motion for protective order seeking prevent audiovisual recording his deposition: MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Mr. Pagliano motion both unnecessary and premature. The Court has already ordered that all audiovisual copies depositions taken this case shall sealed until further order the Court. Mr. Pagliano offers sufficient reason for the Court revisit the issue. Mr. Pagliano asserts that there proper reason videotape the deposition intends assert his rights under the Fifth Amendment. the contrary, the video will helpful the Court assessing the demeanor and credibility Mr. Pagliano and when chooses assert the Fifth Amendment. one court has observed, Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 06/02/16 Page The video deposition allowed because superior method conveying the fact finder the full message the witness manner that assists the fact finder assessing credibility and because Rule 30(b)(2) specifically permits the deposing party select the method recordation the deposition. Riley Murdock, 156 F.R.D. 130, 131 (E.D.N.C. 1994). Moreover, since Mr. Pagliano presumably will answer certain questions that not present any risk prosecution, the videotape will useful assessing Mr. Pagliano demeanor answering those questions well. Littlewood Federal Realty Inv. Trust, No. 13-CV-5538-F, 2014 6713468 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Sep 2014) Facial expressions, voice inflections, intonation, gestures, and body language all enrich the experience the deposition and ultimately advance the litigation process search for the truth. addition, videotaping depositions useful for Court observe how the attorneys conduct themselves the deposition, which often becomes relevant this issue sanctions. Alexander FBI, 186 F.R.D. 123, 127 (D.D.C. 1998). Any concerns that Mr. Pagliano has about the potential public release the video some undefined time the future plainly are premature. Any concern such the video being used create soundbites can addressed and when motion made lift the existing protective order. any event, Mr. Pagliano suggestion that video him invoking the Fifth Amendment could taint potential jury pool (Motion irrelevant jury will impaneled this case. Hence, harm can result from video being created. fact, the only harm claimed Mr. Pagliano relating the creation video possible leak data breach the court reporting company. Motion This assertion is, course, entirely speculative, and needlessly questions the good faith Plaintiff and the court reporting company has retained. Fanelli -2- Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 06/02/16 Page Centenary College, 211 F.R.D. 268, 270 (D.N.J. 2002) (protective order restricting video should not entered without specific showing clearly defined and serious injury Finally, this motion represents the second time the past week that former State Department employee has attacked Plaintiff motives pursuing this case and conducting discovery. See Motion (describing this lawsuit with undisputed political agenda the Court has stated, this case about the public right know details related the creation, purpose and use the clintonemail.com system. Plaintiff has proceeded professionally and cautiously each stage this litigation. These attempts impugn Plaintiff integrity are unwarranted and inappropriate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Mr. Pagliano motion for protective order denied. Dated: June 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael Bekesha Michael Bekesha D.C. Bar No. 995749 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 (202) 646-5172 Counsel for Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. -3- Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 86-1 Filed 06/02/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 13-cv-1363 (EGS) [PROPOSED] ORDER Upon consideration Plaintiff Opposition Non-Party Deponent Bryan Pagliano Motion for Protective Order and the entire record herein, hereby ORDERED that: Non-Party Deponent Bryan Pagliano motion DENIED. ORDERED. DATE: The Hon. Emmet Sullivan, U.S.D.J.