STEPHEN BROWN, Magistrate Judge
This matter is before this Court on Defendant's . . . Motion for Protective Order . . ., filed December 28, 2004. The Court has considered the motion and finds that its "attempt" to comply with Local Rule 7.1.A.3 falls far short. Defendant says, in essence, that because plaintiff took the action that resulted in the filing of this motion, there's no point in talking. Were this a proper interpretation of the Local Rule, there would probably be no need for the local rule.
Secondly, these depositions were noticed on December 15, 2004, to take place on December 29, 2004. The motion was filed the day before the depositions were to take place and was not filed as an emergency.
A motion for protective order in Federal Court does not stay discovery. Hepperle v. Johnston, 590 F. 2d 609, 613 (5th Cir. 1979); Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F. 2d 257, 269 (9th Cir. 1964). In addition, the motion is now moot.
Decisions by the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said motion be and the same is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.