Couch v. State of California, et al

Filing 202

ORDER GRANTING 157 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to take additional depositions and depositions of prisoners. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/26/2011. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
RYAN COUCH, et al.,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOMMY WAN, KIMBERLI BONCORE, )
and RALPH DIAZ
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

1:08cv1621 LJO DLB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO TAKE ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITIONS AND DEPOSITIONS OF
PRISONERS
(Document 157)

16
On August 18, 2011, Plaintiffs Ryan Couch and Kenneth Jimenez (“Plaintiffs”) filed the
17
instant motion for leave to take ten depositions, including two depositions of individuals
18
confined in prison, in addition to the ten depositions allowed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
19
Procedure 20. The motion was heard before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States
20
Magistrate Judge, on September 23, 2011. Daniel Zlatnik and Edward Caden appeared on behalf
21
of Plaintiffs. Mary Horst, Deputy Attorney General, appeared on behalf non-party California
22
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and on behalf of Defendants Tommy
23
Wan, Kimberli Boncore and Ralph Diaz.
24
BACKGROUND
25
Officers Couch and Jimenez allege violations of their free speech rights and violations of
26
the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1964, against
27
28
1

1

Defendants Tommy Wan, Kimberli Boncore and Ralph Diaz in their individual and official

2

capacities.

3

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to exceed the presumptive limits of Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

30(a)(2) and conduct ten additional depositions. The parties filed a joint statement of discovery

5

dispute on September 16, 2011.

6
7

DISCUSSION
A.

8
9

Legal Standard
Rule 30(a) (2)(A)(i) provides that no party may take more than ten depositions without

leave of court or stipulation of the parties. A party seeking leave of court must make a

10

“particularized showing” why the discovery is necessary. C & C Jewelry Mfg., Inc. v. West, 2011

11

WL 767839, * 1 (N.D. Cal.2011) (citing Archer Danield Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc.,

12

187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999)). Rule 30(a)(2) provides that, when a party seeks leave to

13

take more than ten depositions, the Court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule

14

26(b)(2). Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), a court must limit discovery if it determines (1) the discovery

15

sought is cumulative or duplicative, or can better be obtained from some other source; (2) the

16

party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the

17

action; and (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed.

18

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii); Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. CMG Mortg., Inc., 2011 WL

19

203675, *2 (N.D. Cal.2011).

20

B.

Analysis

21

1.

Additional Depositions

22

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ request is premature because Plaintiffs have not

23

completed the ten depositions permitted as of right. As stated at the hearing, Plaintiffs have

24

conducted only five depositions. Generally, courts will not grant leave to expand the number of

25

depositions until the moving party has exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under

26

Rule 30(a)(2). See, e.g., Authentec, Inc. v. Atura Tech. 2008 WL 5120767, *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4,

27

2008). However, courts have departed from this “exhaustion rule” where the complexity of the

28

case clearly warranted more than ten depositions. See, e.g., Del Campo v. American Corrective
2

1

Counseling Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 3306496 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) (complex case involving

2

five plaintiffs and eleven defendants, court found that it would be prejudicial to require plaintiffs

3

to choose to take ten depositions before they knew whether they would be granted more).

4

Here, the complexity of this case justifies exceeding the presumptive deposition limit.

5

The action involves multiple plaintiffs, multiple defendants and complex legal issues. While

6

there are foundational facts common to both Plaintiffs, many the facts concern only Officer

7

Couch’s claims or only Officer Jimenez’s claims. The complaint contains allegations of multiple

8

retaliatory acts, threats, harassment and intimidation. The RICO claims span multiple events and

9

multiple individuals.

10

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the particularized showing required for

11

leave to exceed the presumptive deposition limits. First, the proposed depositions are not

12

cumulative or duplicative. Plaintiffs have identified a preliminary list of over twenty individuals

13

they may wish to depose, but expect to refine that list to approximately twenty. As the proposed

14

witnesses and a summary of their anticipated testimony was filed under seal, the Court will not

15

restate that information. It is sufficient to note that the proposed depositions include persons

16

with knowledge of facts concerning Officer Jimenez’s removal from an Investigative Services

17

Unit (“ISU”) position, Defendant Boncore’s alleged relationship with inmates, allegations against

18

Defendant Wan, and Officer Couch’s transfer out of ISU. Defendants argue that the anticipated

19

testimony is cumulative. While the Court agrees that there may be some overlap, the proposed

20

depositions and anticipated testimony are not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.

21

Second, although Plaintiffs have had an opportunity to obtain discovery through other

22

means, the Court finds that many facts in this case may likely only be obtained through live

23

witness testimony. By way of example, Plaintiffs point to their allegations that Defendants

24

ordered deletion of incriminating facts from ex-gang member debriefing reports, ordered

25

evidence of Defendants’ misconduct destroyed, and refused to investigate or seek prosecution of

26

certain inmates. Given the nature of the allegations and the information sought from the

27

witnesses, the Court agrees that only oral testimony likely can prove these allegations and that

28

other less-intrusive discovery devices may be ineffective.
3

1

Third, the burden or expense of the proposed discovery does not outweigh its likely

2

benefit. As discussed at the hearing, Plaintiffs will bear much of the expense associated with

3

additional depositions, including subpoenas, court reporters and transcripts. The Court declines

4

to require Plaintiffs to pay for the costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred by Defendants for

5

additional depositions. There is no basis for cost-shifting.

6

2.

Depositions of Prisoners

7

As part of the request to exceed the presumptive deposition limit, Plaintiffs also seek

8

leave to depose two identified prisoners.1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), a party must seek

9

leave to conduct a deposition if the deponent is confined in prison. Plaintiffs believe these

10
11

prisoners have unique firsthand knowledge of facts at issue in this case.
Defendants counter that the depositions of currently incarcerated inmates should not be

12

allowed because the burden outweighs the likely benefit. They believe that the depositions may

13

have an impact on the safety and security of all defendants, particularly Officer Boncore.

14

Defendants’ security concerns regarding these depositions are overstated, in part because

15

Plaintiffs’ counsel has already interviewed these prisoners.

16
17

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to take additional

18

depositions is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may take ten depositions, including the depositions of two

19

prisoners, in addition to the ten depositions allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

September 26, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
1

28

As the names of these prisoners and their anticipated testimony was filed under seal, the Court does not
identify them by name in this Order.

4