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