Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1497 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

______________________________________/

This Document Relates To: ATS ACTIONS

Does 1-976 (10-cv-80652)

Does 1-677 (11-cv-80404)
Does 1-2146 (17-cv-80475)
______________________________________/

Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order

to Participate in Depositions by Video

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), the Plaintiffs represented herein move the Court for a Protective

Order so that they may give deposition testimony by video from Colombia, rather than by traveling

to Fort Lauderdale, FL.

On July 6, 2017, Defendant Chquita Brands served undersigned counsel with Notices of

Deposition, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents for each of the eight

potential bellwether cases selected from my pool of 2146 cases. The eight plaintiffs are to appear

at various times between Sept. 29 - Oct. 2, 2017 at Blank Rome LLP, 500 East Broward Boulevard

Suite 2100, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394.

Although Plaintiffs do not actually know, the Defendants presumably sent similar requests

to counsel for the other six plaintiffs groups, for a total of 56 depositions, 56 Sets of Interrogatories,

and 56 Requests for Production. If this is not true, the Defendant is certainly free to point that out

in its response.

The Court should enter a Protective Order due to the number of depositions, and the fact

that video depositions are more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive than asking 56
1
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1497 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 2 of 5

people from remote areas of Colombia to travel to Fort Lauderdale. F.R.C.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i),

26(b)(2)(C)(i). It's highly unlikely any of the Plaintiffs can speak English (none of mine do) or

have traveled internationally before. Many of my clients cannot read or write. Visas will have to

be obtained on relatively short notice. Considering that the Plaintiffs are family members of people

killed by one or another terrorist group, the State Deparment may not immediately clear all of them

for entry into the U.S. Then, there is the cost and inefficiency of sending 56 people to a foreign

country to wait their turn to testify.

It would be a lot easier to take the depositions by video from a hotel room in Apartad,1

Colombia, or for Defendants' counsel to travel there if they wish to attend the depositions

personally. Bringing potentially thousands of plaintiffs to the U.S., not only for trials but for

depositions, is just the kind of nightmare the Defendant warned the Court about in its two Motions

to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens. Although the Court ruled based on the adequacy of the

forum in Colombia, the location of the evidence was a factor argued by Defendant in these motions.

The problem goes away once the depositions are taken by video, or in a location that is easier for

the Plaintiffs. 2

The Court should be guided by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 26 in deciding

whether to grant this Motion. They state, in pertinent part, the following:

Rule 30(a)(2) With Leave. A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant
leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2):

(A) if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and:

(i) the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions being taken under this rule
or Rule 31 by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or by the third-party defendants;

1
Apartad is the largest town in the Urab region, where most of the Plaintiffs live.
2
If the Court wanted to find a middle ground, the depositions could be taken in Medelln. Medelln
is a more comfortable place for visitors than Apartad, and perhaps more secure. It takes 8 hours
to travel to Medelln from Apartad by bus, but this is still easier than traveling to Fort Lauderdale.
2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1497 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 3 of 5

FRCP 30(a)(2)(A)(i). (emphasis added) The Defendant wants to take a total of 56 depositions,

but did not seek leave of the Court.

Rule 26(b)(2) Limitations on Frequency and Extent.

(A) When Permitted. By order, the court may alter the limits in these rules on the number
of depositions and interrogatories or on the length of depositions under Rule 30. By order
or local rule, the court may also limit the number of requests under Rule 36.

***

(C) When Required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent
of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

FRCP 26(b)(2). (emphasis added) Therefore, if the Court finds that video depositions, or

depositions in Colombia would be more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive than

depositions in Colombia, it must limit the frequency or extent of the requested discovery. Id. This

language appears to allow the Court no discretion, although the Court generally has broad

discretion in discovery matters.

The inconvenience and burden of bringing 56 people from the Colombian jungle to Florida

is apparent. Video depositions are also cheaper than flying to Florida (at a cost of between $1,000

to $5,000 per ticket, depending on how far in advance they are purchased, and the restrictions on

them) and putting the Plaintiffs in hotels for $150 or more per night. Renting a hotel room in

Apartad costs no more than $50 per night (on my last trip I paid $15) and return bus fare from

anywhere in the Urab region costs no more than $5. The video conferencing can be done by

Skype (which is free) or another video conferencing service at minimal cost. Hotels in Apartad

have high speed internet service.

3
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1497 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 4 of 5

In addition to granting the instant Motion for Protective Order, the Court should also

manage the calendar for this discovery, as it recently did to allow the Plaintiffs more time to

complete their initial disclosures. The responses to Defendants' interrogatories are due within 30

days. I have a five-day trial in Colorado District Court set to begin on July 17, 2017, and this

would force me to fly to Colombia immediately afterwards to meet with the Plaintiffs.

Since the Defendants served these discovery requests with no warning, the Plaintiffs should

only have to respond to the requests to the extent the information is already available in the files,

and supplement their responses after meeting with the Plaintiffs at some reasonable time within

the discovery period. If the Defendant wants to begin the depositions in 60 days, it would be more

efficient if I could spend the last two weeks in September in Apartad meeting with the Plaintiffs

to answer the interrogatories and produce any documents not already produced. Then we would

be ready to do these depositions by video beginning September 29th.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should GRANT the instant Motion, and Order the

depositions noticed by the Defendants to occur by video, or in Apartad, Colombia. The Court

should also grant an extension of time for the Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants Interrogatories

and Requests for Production such that the information may be obtained on the same trip.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

_____________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar 42107
PO Box 46213
Denver, CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com

July 6, 2017

4
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1497 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2017 Page 5 of 5

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 6, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all persons
entitled to receive such notices.

/s/ Paul Wolf

______________
Paul Wolf