identical in substance to the objection to the September 11, 2009 order, it is assumed that objections were properly made to interrogatories 2 and 9. 7 . The defense was stricken for failure to allege fraud with specificity in the answer as required by Rule 9(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 . It is not entirely clear whose deposition it is to which plaintiffs object. The objection describes the individual in question only as "Plaintiff Lee." "Lee” is the last name of several plaintiffs. 9 . Moreover, barring exceptional circumstances, plaintiffs must be available for a deposition in the district in which the action was brought. See 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2112. 10 . See also United States v. Kimbell Foods, 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Caleb Nelson, The Persistence of General Law,
holding that federal programs that require uniform application necessitate formulation of controlling federal rules holding that federal veilpiercing standards are appropriate in medicare disputes due to the need for a uniform federal approach holding in part that the ncaa was subject to title vi because it exercised controlling authority over athletic programs receiving federal financial assistance holding that the priority of liens stemming from federal lending programs is a matter of federal common law recognizing privilege under federal rules