Shearin v. Charter Communications, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOHN LESTER SHEARIN, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00083-SNLJ
)
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, 	)
INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant MasTec North America, Inc.’s
motion for protective order and request for oral argument [Doc. 36] and defendant
Charter Communications, Inc.’s motion for protective order and request for oral
argument [Doc. 38]. Both motions request that the Court forbid plaintiff, or at the very
least limit, the discovery sought by plaintiff in its second amended notice of taking
videotaped deposition of corporate designees. [Docs. 37, 37-4, 39, 39-3].
Local Rule 3.04 provides:
The Court will not consider any motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless
it contains a statement that movant’s counsel has conferred in person or by
telephone with the opposing counsel in good faith or has made reasonable efforts
to do so, but that after sincere efforts to resolve their dispute, counsel are unable to
reach an accord. This statement also shall recite the date, time and manner of such
conference, and the names of the individuals participating therein, or shall state
with specificity the efforts made to confer with opposing counsel.
See E.D. Mo. L.R. 3.04. Here, the only indication in defendants’ motions that any
communications were initiated with plaintiff’s counsel is one letter written by counsel for
Case: 1:25-cv-00083-SNLJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

defendant MasTec on October 21, 2025 [Doc. 37-2], that raised initial concerns with
plaintiff’s notice [Doc. 37-1]. Since that communication, plaintiff issued an amended
notice [Doc. 37-3] on November 4, 2025, and a second amended notice [Doc. 37-4] on
November 25, 2025, that altered the topics listed in the initial notice. After plaintiff’s
amendments, there is no indication that defendants’ counsel has conferred in person with
opposing counsel regarding the alleged disputes or even made a good faith or reasonable
effort to do so as required by Local Rule 3.04. As a result, the motions must be
summarily denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant MasTec North America, Inc.’s
Motion for Protective Order and Request for Oral Argument [Doc. 36] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Charter Communications, Inc.’s
Motion for Protective Order and Request for Oral Argument [Doc. 38] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 29th day of December, 2025.
______________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:25-cv-00083-SNLJ Doc. #: 40 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>