Cooper v. Escambia County Commission et al
ORDER finding as moot 50 Motion to Limit Discovery (to Terminate Deposition of JoAnn Cooper). The Court DECLINES to specifically and officially sanction the resumption of JoAnn Cooper's deposition after the close of discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 8/12/2011. copies to parties (sdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JOANN P. COOPER,
ESCAMBIA COUNTY COMMISSION, :
This cause is before the Court on the motion to terminate deposition of JoAnn
Cooper (Doc. 50) and the response filed by Johnnie and Susanne Sirmon (Doc. 60). This
order is entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1).
The Rule 16(b) scheduling order entered in this case on February 4, 2011 limited
the duration of depositions to “seven (7) hours unless extended by agreement of the
parties” (Doc. 27, at 3), consistent with Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure which provides that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours.” Id.
It is clear to the undersigned that JoAnn Cooper was deposed for at least six hours
on July 20, 2011 (compare Doc. 60, Deposition of JoAnn P. Cooper, at 1 (deposition
commenced at 9:03 a.m.) with Doc. 60, at 1 (“Because of the late hour, counsel for the
Sirmons recessed Plaintiff’s deposition by agreement with Plaintiff’s counsel after only
approximately 30 minutes of examination.”) and Doc. 50, at 1 (“The deposition began at
9:00 a.m. and ended after 4:00 p.m. with a break for lunch.”)), yet the Sirmons now want
this Court to deny Cooper’s motion to terminate deposition and specifically sanction the
reconvention of Cooper’s deposition (see Doc. 60) after the discovery deadline has
expired and this Court has declined to extend that very deadline (compare Doc. 53 with
Doc. 59). For their part, the Sirmons, prior to the close of discovery, never sought from
this Court relief from the 7‐hour limitation; however, they now contend that this Court
should allow resumption of Cooper’s deposition based upon an agreement with
Cooper’s attorney to recess the deposition and reconvene same at a later date. (Compare
Doc. 60, at 1 with Doc. 60, Cooper depo., at 205 (transcription of a portion of the
attorneys’ agreement regarding recess and reconvention of the deposition).) The
problem with this argument is that it is clear from the motion filed by Cooper that her
attorney’s agreement regarding reconvention of the deposition was tied to same
occurring on July 25, 2011 (Doc. 50, at 1‐2), a date, of course, prior to the close of
Upon consideration of the foregoing, this Court DECLINES to specifically and
officially sanction the resumption of JoAnn Cooper’s deposition after the close of
discovery based upon an agreement the terms of which are unclear and remain open to
debate and argument. The undersigned, therefore, simply MOOTS the motion to
terminate deposition (Doc. 50), as well as the response (Doc. 60). However, in line with a
previous statement made in the order dated August 5, 2011 (see Doc. 59, at 8 n.3), the
parties are reminded that they can take any discovery remaining in this case by consent.
More specifically, the undersigned would venture the guess that Cooper’s attorney
would accommodate the Sirmons’ request to reconvene Cooper’s deposition following
the depositions of Susanne Sirmon and certain Escambia County deponents.
DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2011.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?