Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 68 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1607

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, et al., Defendants. / Case No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBM

ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Witness Brian Culkin (Doc. 53), and Plaintiffs response in opposition (Docs. 56, 65).1 By their Motion, Defendants seek to take the deposition de bene esse of Brian Culkin in anticipation of the Courts hearing on Defendants motion to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel on October 3, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs do not oppose the deposition, but they contest certain representations by Defendants and disagree on the Defendants proposed restrictions on the conduct of the same. A telephone hearing was held on August 12, 2013. Counsel for the parties, as well as Mr. Culkin and his attorney, Ray Jeffrey, participated in the conversation.

Plaintiffs objection (Doc. 56) was responded to by Defendants Opposition (Doc. 58). Both were previously terminated. Counsel are reminded that Local Rule 3.01 anticipates that there be a motion, and, if the motion is opposed, a response. Further, under Local Rule 3.01(c), [n]o party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed to [a] motion or response . . . unless the Court grants leave.

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 68 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1608

Upon consideration, on Defendants Motion for Leave to Take Deposition fo Witness Brian Culkin (Doc. 53) is DENIED. As discussed at the hearing, Mr. Culkin will voluntarily appear and respond to questions by the Court and by counsel. The parties have agreed to share the cost of his transportation and a reasonable per diem. Given the current posture of the litigation and in light of Mr. Culkins willingness to voluntarily appear, the Court denies any request for a pre-hearing deposition. However, as suggested at the hearing, Mr. Culkin may be in possession of certain e-mail communications that are potentially pertinent to the issues to be addressed at the upcoming hearing. While Mr. Culkin believes that all such emails were deleted after his settlement and his counsel, Mr. Jeffrey, asserts that there may be claims of privilege related to such e-mails, Mr. Culkin will make a search to see if any such e-mails exist and may be produced. The Court has requested counsel to confer and if agreement can be reached on production of such non-privileged matters as they may exist, arrangements for production should be made consistent with the Courts Order directing the exchange of witness and exhibit lists and the submitting of courtesy copies to chambers prior to the October 2013 hearing. Done and Ordered in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of August 2013.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record