Where an employee asserting claims for age discrimination and retaliation failed to explore reasonable alternatives before he sought to depose the chairman of the board of directors and chairman of its Governance and Compensation Committee, the magistrate judge did not err in granting the bank’s motion for a protective order.
Background
Bradford Kendrick sued his former employer, Carter Bank & Trust Inc., asserting claims of disparate treatment and harassment, as well as retaliation, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Before the court are Kendrick’s objections to the three magistrate judge orders, as well as Kendrick’s declaration seeking the re-opening of discovery.
Haskins
Kendrick sought to take the deposition of James W. Haskins, who served as the Bank’s Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chairman of its Governance and Compensation Committee and briefly served as its lead counsel in this case by filing a responsive pleading. The magistrate judge granted the bank’s motion for a protective order precluding the deposition, without prejudice to the plaintiffs later making a showing that, despite other discovery efforts, no other reasonable alternatives exist to obtain the unique knowledge that Haskins may have in the management of the bank during the relevant periods.
Kendrick argues that a protective order was not warranted because Haskins was an active participant in the events giving rise to the cause of action and no reasonable alternatives exist...
Menu thewest.com.auLoginSubscribe Today's PaperPlace an AdSunday, 13 September 2026 Regional WACourts & JusticeKalgoorlie Miner Man guilty of attempting to pervert course of justice given six ...