Diaz v. C. S. & W. Contractors, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER denying 31 Defendant's Motion to Reopen Discovery. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/21/2011.(TLB)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tina Diaz, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 C. S. & W. Contractors, Inc., 13 No. CV 10-1591-PHX-JAT Defendant. ORDER 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery to take the 16 deposition of Fernando Flores. In this case, Plaintiff is suing for sexual harassment. 17 Many of Plaintiff’s claims arise from actions allegedly taken by Flores. The parties did 18 not take Mr. Flores’ deposition within the original discovery deadline because they were 19 unable to locate him. Defendant seeks to take Mr. Flores’ video-taped deposition in 20 Mexico. 21 Plaintiff objects to taking of Mr. Flores deposition of several grounds: 1) this Court 22 has no jurisdiction in Mexico; 2) Plaintiff’s counsel does not have a passport that would 23 allow him to travel to Mexico; 3) Chihuahua, Mexico is too dangerous for the Court to 24 order the parties to travel there; 4) Mr. Flores appeared at Plaintiff’s house after she quit 25 working for Defendant and she had to obtain an Order of Protection against him, so she 26 does not want to travel to Mexico where Mr. Flores might again harass her; and 5) 27 because deposing Mr. Flores would cause Plaintiff to need to do some additional 28 discovery of her own, the Court should not permit the deposition because it would delay the resolution of this case. 1 Without considering Plaintiff’s objections numbered 2, 3, and 4, which raise 2 legitimate concerns, the Court will deny the motion based on objections 1 and 5. First, 3 Plaintiff is correct that this Court has no jurisdiction in Mexico. Further, the appropriate 4 procedure for this Court to seek testimony from a witness outside this Court’s 5 jurisdiction is a letter rogatory. 23 Am. Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 17; see 6 also In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Washington, 634 F.3d 557 7 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendant has not sought a letter rogatory and the Court has no reason 8 to believe this procedure could be accomplished within the current trial schedule. Thus, 9 because this Court does not have jurisdiction to hold a person to their oath in Mexico, 10 and because there is not adequate time for either Plaintiff or Defendant to complete 11 additional discovery in Mexico within the current trial schedule, 12 13 14 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery (Doc. 31) is denied. DATED this 21st day of July, 2011. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?