NOTE: It is now 24 July 2014 -- Approximately six (6) weeks have passed and they still haven't paid my goddamn appearance fees.
Folks, I don't have enough words to describe the disdain I feel when people with such a large impact on public matters hide from cameras. Too bad Ms. Kaufman has waived her arguments in my not so humble opinion for several reasons, as noted in the video. First of all her written Depo is already online in a similar case, hosted by my friends at Stafne Law Offices. Next, I found her job description and image on the Internet in exactly 40 seconds by simply running her name and place of employment. Third, anyone involved in mortgages who is directly or indirectly involved in the preparation of documents filed into the public record should consider themselves public enough to appear in a video deposition.
So when the shit hits the fan I will have Amicus support for my Amicus. Wait for it... because as always, I am on the cutting edge and the mortgage oligarchy is going to push back from time to time. Read my Amicus in Scribd and with full text placed into the body of this journal entry as well. I want people to be able to use these arguments whenever they can. Open and transparent access is the Name of the Game.
3. Irreparable Loss
The special right asserted will not be irreparably lost if review is postponed. If an appellate court determines that this Court improperly compelled the video deposition of the plaintiff, plaintiff's right to redress is not irreparably lost by waiting until conclusion of the matter at trial level. At worst should the video become fodder to embarrass plaintiff, he has grounds for another lawsuit. The plaintiff does not have a right to dictate the manner in which a party may pursue a course of discovery nor may a party unilaterally limit dissemination absent some compelling [*9] reason. Additionally, plaintiff aptly notes that there are several safeguards to prevent defense counsel—the individual from whom assurances were sought—from distributing the video prior to its placement in the public domain through the filing of a motion or presentment at trial.
B. Plaintiff's Appeal of the Court's Denial of a Protective Order Fails To Satisfy the Collateral Order Tripartite Test
On the other side of the coin is plaintiffs request for a protective order. "Upon motion by a party...and for good cause shown, the court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense." Pa. R.C.P. § 4012(a). The burden is that of the moving party, the plaintiff here, to establish that court intervention is needed to protect the plaintiff from unreasonable annoyance or embarrassment. Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to establish that a video deposition is an unreasonable [*10] annoyance or embarrassment.
For plaintiff to prevail on the motion for protective order, the Court must accept the likelihood a series of events will occur. First, the Court must find that the video will capture a gesture such as a lick or other inappropriate behavior which is extraneous and/or an extreme deviation from other public appearances by the plaintiff—a public figure. Second, plaintiff wants the Court to assume that someone will gain access to this video during the litigation process. Third, the video will be reviewed for embarrassing content. Fourth the video will be altered by some form of cyber chicanery thereby enhancing the embarrassing tick or gesture. And lastly the Court is asked to assume the video will be published or otherwise disseminated resulting in "unreasonable embarrassment". Plaintiff acknowledges that any potential abuse of the video would not affect the merits of this case. Plaintiff admits that there are several defamatory lawsuits involving the plaintiff and the defendant's employer but fails to cite to any instance [*11] where such an abuse as presently feared has occurred. Additionally, plaintiff conceded that a number of safe guards existed to prevent the type of harm envisioned. The Court finds that entering a protective order under these facts will erode a litigant's right to conduct a deposition vis-à-vis video, a right which has been codified in Pa. R.C.P. § 4017.1(a).