Reyes v. Seabulk Tankers, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-CV-60834-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
GERSON R. SABIO VELASQUEZ,
as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Roberto Andres Sabio Ruiz,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEABULK TANKERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING SEABULK TANKERS, INC.’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER REGARDING CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE DEPOSITION TOPICS
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Seabulk Tankers, Inc.’s Motion for
Protective Order Regarding Corporate Representative Deposition Topics, which is fully briefed at
docket entries 73, 74, and 75. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the record and
is fully advised in the premises. 	The Court set a hearing on the Motion for April 23, 2026,
at 1:30 p.m. DE 72. However, upon review of the briefing, a hearing is unnecessary for the Court
to resolve the dispute that the parties present in the Motion. 	Therefore, the April 23 hearing is
CANCELED. As set forth below, the Motion [DE 73] is DENIED.
Defendant moves for a protective order precluding Plaintiff Gerson R. Sabio Velasquez
from inquiring into seven of the topics Plaintiff has provided for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
Defendant’s corporate representative. 	Parties generally “may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (defining the scope of discovery in federal lawsuits). But a
Case 0:25-cv-60834-DSL Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
“court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The protective
order may forbid inquiry into certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). The party seeking a
protective order bears the burden of establishing good cause for one. 	Stansell v. Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colom., 120 F.4th 754, 766 (11th Cir. 2024).
In a notice or subpoena, “a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation,
a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with
reasonable particularity the matters for examination.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 	“The named
organization must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other
persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it must set out the matters on which each person
designated will testify.” Id.
There is mixed caselaw on whether courts should intercede in the topics for a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition before the deposition by issuing a protective order. 	See Florida v. United States,
342 F.R.D. 153, 156 (N.D. Fla. 2022) (“At the outset, the Court notes there are varying opinions
on whether a district court should even entertain a pre-deposition motion for a protective order that
seeks to limit the topics that can be covered during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.”). One Judge in
this District previously explained that Rule 30(b)(6) “is intended to be self-executing and must
operate extrajudicially.” 	New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, No. 05-22916-CIV,
2007 WL 1068124, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007). “[T]he proper operation of the Rule does not
require, and indeed does not justify, a process of objection and Court intervention prior to the
schedule[d] deposition,” as such a process “would provide a corporate deponent a procedural
benefit that no other deponent has.” Id. “[T]he better procedure to follow for the proper operation
of the Rule is for a corporate deponent to object to the designation topics that are believed to be
Case 0:25-cv-60834-DSL Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
improper and give notice to the requesting party of those objections, so that they can either be
resolved in advance or otherwise.” Id. “The requesting party has the obligation to reconsider its
position, narrow the scope of the topic, or otherwise stand on its position and seek to compel
additional answers if necessary, following the deposition.” 	Id. (emphasis omitted). 	But see
Florida, 342 F.R.D. at 156–57 (citing caselaw where courts have ruled on motions seeking to limit
topics before Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and agreeing to rule on one such motion because the parties
“provided the Court with a sufficient basis to rule”).
Here, inquiry into each of the seven topics in dispute could produce information that is
relevant to this lawsuit. 	Inquiry into instances where Defendant determined that a seaman was
unfit for employment (Topic # 28) could reveal information about Defendant’s policies and
procedures when an employee seaman is unfit. This information could be relevant to Plaintiff’s
claim that Defendant should have acted differently when decedent Roberto Andres Sabio Ruiz
arguably became unfit for his employment due to his medical conditions.
The answers and responses Defendant gave to interrogatories and requests for production
(Topic #’s 30 and 31) are fair topics of inquiry for the deposition. Inquiry into these topics could
elicit greater detail about Defendant’s evidence and positions and elicit explanation of the
documents Defendant has produced.
Inquiry 	into 	Defendant’s 	contentions 	related 	to 	decedent’s 	medical 	conditions
(Topic #’s 32, 33, 34, and 35) are also fair topics of inquiry for the deposition. Inquiry into these
topics could provide insight into the factual positions Defendant is taking with respect to this
lawsuit.
Given that inquiry into each of the seven topics in dispute could produce relevant
information, Defendant’s request for a protective order precluding that inquiry is denied.
Case 0:25-cv-60834-DSL Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
Certainly, the Court can conceive of questions falling within these topics that might be outside of
the scope of discovery or otherwise objectionable. 	Defendant may preserve its objections to
individual questions during the deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (“An objection at the time
of the examination . . . must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the
testimony is taken subject to any objection.”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for
Protective Order Regarding Corporate Representative Deposition Topics [DE 73] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 21st day of
April, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 0:25-cv-60834-DSL Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2026 Page 4 of 4