Theriault et al v. New Direction IRA, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH THERIAULT and WILLIAM WEIGEL,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NEW DIRECTION IRA, INC., NEW DIRECTION
TRUST COMPANY, and MAINSTAR TRUST,
Defendants.
CONSOLIDATED CASES
Case No. 23-2477-JWB-ADM
CHRISTY WALLACE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NEW DIRECTION IRA, INC., NEW DIRECTION
TRUST COMPANY, and MAINSTAR TRUST,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-2007-JWB-ADM
ORDER
On August 5, 2026, the court convened a telephone conference at the parties’ request. The
parties had gathered to conduct plaintiff Christy Wallace’s deposition, and a dispute arose as to
whether plaintiffs Joseph Theriault and William Weigel could attend. Defendants made an oral
motion for a protective order asking the court to exclude Theriault, Weigel, and Wallace from
attending one another’s depositions. 	(ECF 291.) 	For the reasons explained more fully on the
record, the court denied the motion.
Case 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM Document 292 Filed 08/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
First, the court views Theriault, Weigel, and Wallace as parties to the same action for
discovery purposes, pursuant to the court’s consolidation order. (See ECF 137.) The consolidation
order specifically found: “Consolidation would promote judicial (and party) economy by
eliminating duplication in discovery, particularly depositions, because witnesses in both cases may
significantly overlap. Defendants do not contest consolidation for discovery purposes.” (Id. at 3
(emphasis added).) Parties have a right to attend depositions in their cases. See Conrad v. Bd. of
Johnson Cnty. Kan. Comm’rs, No. 00-2277-DJW, 2001 WL 1155298, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 17,
2001).
Second, even if Theriault, Weigel, and Wallace are not considered parties to the same
action, the court would allow them to attend one another’s depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(c)(1). Rule 30(c)(1) states, in relevant part, that the “[e]xamination and cross-
examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial under the provisions of the Federal Rules
of Evidence, except Rules 103 and 615.” Federal Rule of Evidence 615 provides that the court,
upon request, “must order witnesses excluded . . . so that they cannot hear other witnesses’
testimony.” 	The 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 30(c) emphasize that Rule 615’s
exclusion from Rule 30(c) was intended to establish a general rule that “other witnesses are not
automatically excluded from a deposition simply by the request of a party.” Instead, exclusion of
individuals from depositions requires entry of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective
order. See 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 30(c).
Here, Theriault, Weigel, and Wallace are fact witnesses in one another’s cases. Defendants
have not demonstrated that special circumstances warrant sequestering them from one another’s
depositions. Rather, defendants only express a generalized concern that one’s testimony might be
influenced by what he or she hears another say. This generalized concern does not demonstrate
Case 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM Document 292 Filed 08/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
good cause for entry of a protective order. See Morris v. Legend Senior Living, LLC, No. Civ-11-
302-M, 2012 WL 874611 (W.D. Okla. March 14, 2012); Radian Asset Assurance, Inc. v. College
of the Christian Brothers of New Mexico, No. Civ. 09-0885, 2010 WL 5476782 (D. N.M. Nov. 24,
2010); Visor v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., No. 96-K-1730, 1997 WL 567923 (D. Colo. Aug. 18,
1997).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF
291) is denied.
Dated August 5, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM Document 292 Filed 08/05/26 Page 3 of 3