United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge
Van Hoek moves the court for an order directing McKesson
Corporation, PSS World Medical, Inc., McKesson
Medical-Surgical Inc., and McKesson Medical-Surgical Top
Holdings, Inc. to provide the personal addresses and
telephone numbers of each of the witnesses named in the
defendants' initial disclosure. (Doc. 37). The defendants
filed a response to the motion, stating that this information
is invasive and not discoverable. (Doc. 40). In addition, the
defendants request a protective order prohibiting Ms. Van
Hoek from obtaining the defendants' witnesses'
personal contact information. (Id.).
defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, they
failed to provide the addresses and telephone number of these
eleven employees listed as witnesses: Clint Brady, Laura
Carmen, Francis D'Avanza, Brian Irish, Paul Jensen,
Alexandra Loisey, Brian Nehr, Darin Sharp, Jeanette Stach,
Craig Williams, and Carlos Xiques.
37-1). Instead, the defendants provided their counsel's
Rule 26(a) provides in pertinent part:
(1) Initial Disclosure.
(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party
must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide
to the other parties:
(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number
of each individual likely to have discoverable information-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). The
requirements of Rule 26(a) are mandatory. Altheim v.
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:10-cv-156-T-24TBM, 2010 WL
11508155, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2010). Providing
counsel's business address does not satisfy Rule
26(a)'s requirements, unless no other address or
telephone number is known. Id. (citing Viveros
v. Nationwide Janitorial Ass'n, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 681
Federal Practice describes the disclosure requirement of Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(i) as “the functional equivalent of
standing court-ordered interrogatories, ” and further
explains that “if some or all of the identified
individuals are employees of the disclosing party, their home
addresses and telephone numbers must be disclosed.” 6
Moore's Federal Practice § 26.22(4)(a)(i).
Furthermore, “[t]he disclosing party does not satisfy
the initial disclosure obligation by providing only its
business address and telephone number, even for employees
with managerial responsibilities, unless the disclosing party
knows no other address.” Id. The disclosure
obligation is also subject to a duty to supplement, under
Hoek asserts the defendants' witnesses' addresses and
telephone numbers are necessary to conduct background
investigations for purposes of use at deposition and trial.
(Doc. 37, p. 9). Contrary to the defendants' argument, it
is permissible for Ms. Van Hoek to conduct background
investigations of the defendants' listed witnesses.
See also Townsend v. Hosp. Bd. of Directors of Lee
Cty., No. 2:10-cv-59-FTM-29, 2010 WL 3702546, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2010); see also Thurby v. Encore
Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 620, 621-22 (D. Colo.
2008) (personal contact information such as home addresses
and telephone numbers usually are not considered private
because they are regularly disclosed to friends, relatives,
companies, schools, and the like, and may be needed by
opposing party to conduct thorough background investigations
of the witnesses). Therefore, the defendants shall provide
each of their listed witnesses' addresses and telephone
numbers, in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1).
the defendants' request for a protective order, a person
moving for a protective order has the burden of proving his
objections and privileges. See, e.g., Bridgewater v.
Carnival Corp., 286 F.R.D. 636, 638-39 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
To establish the need for a protective order, the moving
party must “demonstrate good cause, and must make
‘a particular and specific demonstration of fact as
distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements'
supporting the need for a protective order.”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc.,
231 F.R.D. 426, 429-30 (M.D. Fla. 2005); see also
I.S.E.L., Inc. v. Am. Synthol, Inc., No.
3:08-CV-870-J-25TEM, 2009 WL 3367237, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct.
15, 2009) (The moving party bears a heavy burden to
demonstrate “that disclosure will work a clearly
defined and very serious injury….”) (internal
citations omitted)). The defendants have not demonstrated
good cause for a protective order.
it is ORDERED that Ms. Van Hoek's Motion
to Compel Disclosure of Personal Phone Numbers and Addresses
of Defendants' Witnesses (Doc. 37) is
GRANTED. No. later than July 12,
2018, the defendants must provide Ms. Van Hoek with
the addresses and telephone numbers of each of the eleven
witnesses named above, in compliance with Rule 26(a). Each
party will ...