Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 144 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ and Wife,

MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG

SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; CHURCH
OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE
ORGANIZATION, INC., d/b/a MAJESTIC
CRUISE LINES,

Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE
SCIENTOLOGY DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER INVOKING RULE OF SEQUESTRATION IN DEPOSITIONS
Plaintiffs Luis A. Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia, in accordance with
Rule 3.01(b) of the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, submit their memorandum in
opposition to the Motion for Protective Order Invoking Rule of Sequestration (the Motion)
jointly filed by Defendants Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. and Church of
Scientology Flag Ship Service Organization, Inc., d/b/a Majestic Cruise Lines (collectively
referred to herein as the Scientology Defendants).
The Motion should be denied.
I. ARGUMENT
The Scientology Defendants are not entitled as a matter of right to sequester witnesses at
the oral depositions relating to the Scientology Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration. BCI

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 144 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3021

Commc'n Sys., Inc. v. Bell Atlanticom Sys., Inc., 112 F.R.D. 154, 156-57 (N.D. Ala. 1986).
Rather, pretrial discovery must take place in public unless compelling reasons exist for denying
the public access to the proceedings. Fed. R.Civ. P. 26(c). No such predicate provides the
requisite basis in this case.
First, while Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been applied to oral testimony
in trial and depositions, Williams v. Electronic Control Systems, Inc., 68 F.R.D. 703 (E.D. Tenn.
1975); Naismith v. Professional Golfers Association, 85 F.R.D. 552, 567-68 (N.D. Ga. 1979);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) (depositions under the provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence), the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow exclusion of persons from discovery only in exceptional
circumstances, and then only upon motion and order of the court. The party seeking to exclude
persons from depositions must show good cause, and the protection is limited to circumstances
where justice requires such exclusion to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression or undue burden or expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c)(5). The Scientology

Defendants do not meet that burden. See Skidmore v. Nw. Eng'g Co., 90 F.R.D. 75, 75-76 (S.D.
Fla. 1981). The issues on the Motion to Compel Arbitration do not depend on the weight of the
evidence; they depend on ascertainable facts.
Second, the Scientology Defendants argument that Rule 615 should be applied in
connection with their Motion to Compel Arbitration derives from the desire to sequester former
Scientologist Michael Rinder during the deposition of Michael Ellis, a Scientologist who
submitted a declaration for the Scientology Defendants on the Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Yet Rinders deposition (on January 6) is set before Elliss deposition (on January 7).
Sequestration to prevent Rinder from learning before his deposition what Ellis testifies in his
deposition even if it were justified (and it is not) does not serve the stated purpose for

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 144 Filed 12/19/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3022

applying Federal Rule of Evidence 615 to oral depositions on the Scientology Defendants
Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Third, sequestration of witnesses in oral depositions is unnecessary inasmuch Plaintiffs
consultant is permitted at trial and nothing prevents Michael Rinder from reading Elliss
deposition before the evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Contrary to their assertion, Lumpkin v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 451, 453 (M.D. Ga. 1987),
supports Plaintiffs position. Lumpkin held that, while Rule 615 can be invoked at depositions,
the Rule does not apply between deposition and trial. Thus, Rule 615 cannot be used to prohibit
witnesses from reading depositions and communicating with other witnesses between the time a
deposition is taken and the time trial is set to begin. Id. In light of the fact that Rinder can read
the deposition testimony of any witness before the evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Compel
Arbitration, sequestration during the deposition is unnecessary.
II. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, there is no reasonable basis to apply the trial
sequestration rule to the oral depositions relating to the Scientology Defendants Motion to
Compel Arbitration. The Scientology Defendants Motion should be denied accordingly.
Dated: December 19, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Amanda M. McGovern
Amanda M. McGovern
Florida Bar No.: 964263
WEIL QUARANTA MCGOVERN, P.A.
Southeast Financial Center, Suite 900
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
T: 305.372.5352 | F: 305.372.5355
amcgovern@wqmlaw.net

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 144 Filed 12/19/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3023

- and Theodore Babbitt, Esq.

Florida Bar No: 091146
BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE &
LECLAINCHE, P.A.
1641 Worthington Road, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
T: 561.684.2500 | F: 561.684.6308
tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Luis A. Garcia Saz and
Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 144 Filed 12/19/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3024

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
We hereby certify that, on December 19, 2014, we electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified below in
the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by
CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized
to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filings.
F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Esq.
FBN 124449
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel
& Burns, LLP
P.O. Box 1368
Clearwater, FL 33757
Phone: (727) 461-1818
Fax: (727) 462-0365
E-mail: wallyp@ipfirm.com
Counsel for Defendants

Nathan M. Berman, Esq.

FBN 329230
E-mail: nberman@zuckerman.com
Lee Fugate, Esq.
FBN 170928
E-mail: lfugate@zuckerman.com
Jack E. Fernandez, Esq.
FBN 843751
E-mail: jfernandez@zuckerman.com
Mamie V. Wise, Esq.
FBN 65570
E-mail: mwise@zuckerman.com
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 221-1010
Fax: (813) 223-7961
Counsel for Church of Scientology Religious Trust

Marie Tomassi, Esq.

FBN 772062
Trenam Kember Scharf Barkin Frye,
ONeill & Mullis, P.A.
Bank of America Building
200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 820-3952
Fax: (727) 820-3972
E-mail: mtomassi@trenam.com
Counsel for IAS Administrations, Inc.
and U.S. IAS Members Trust

Amanda M. McGovern