Goins et al v. County of Merced et al

Filing 88

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery to Proceed with Deposition of Defendant Hutton 79 . Plaintiffs' motion to reopen the deposition of Defendant Merle Wayne Hutton is DENIED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/22/2015. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DIANE GOINS, et al., 9 Case No. 1:13-cv-01245-DAD-SKO Plaintiffs, 10 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO PROCEED WITH DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT HUTTON v. 11 12 COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., 13 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 14 15 I. 16 INTRODUCTION On November 20, 2015, the fact discovery cutoff, Plaintiffs Diane Goins and Wesley 17 1 18 Rentfrow filed a motion for discovery “to proceed with [the] deposition of Defendant Hutton.” 19 (Docs. 77 (original motion, terminated by Plaintiffs); 79 (refiled motion).) Plaintiffs contend that 20 their former counsel, William Smith, Esq., “was not feeling well” and was therefore unable to 21 complete the deposition of Defendant Hutton on May 21, 2015. (See Doc. 79, p. 2.) On November 24, 2015, the Court issued its tentative order on Plaintiffs’ motion, noting 22 23 that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated good cause to warrant a second deposition of Defendant 24 Hutton based on the information provided. (Doc. 81.) Plaintiffs, however, did not withdraw their 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs initially filed their motion on November 20, 2015, and set a hearing before the undersigned on November 24, 2015. (Doc. 77.) Apparently recognizing that such a hearing date would not comply with the Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted the Clerk of Court and requested the motion be terminated on November 23, 2015. (Doc. 78.) Plaintiffs then refiled the instant motion on November 23, 2015, with a hearing set for December 23, 2105. (Doc. 79.) Defendants argue the motion was therefore filed after the close of fact discovery. (Docs. 84-86.) Though the motion would be untimely as filed on November 23, 2015, it appears clear that the November 23, 2015, filing is merely a re-noticing of the motion timely filed – if barely – on the November 20, 2015, fact discovery deadline. 1 motion or file supplemental briefing to demonstrate that good cause did indeed exist to reopen the 2 deposition of Defendant Hutton. (See Docket.) Defendants opposed the motion on December 17, 3 2015.2 (See Docs. 84-86) Plaintiffs did not file a reply. (See Docket.) Having reviewed the 4 motion and all supporting materials, the matter was found suitable for decision without oral 5 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the December 23, 2015, hearing was vacated. 6 Because the undersigned concludes that Plaintiffs have not established good cause for a 7 second deposition of Defendant Hutton, the Court’s tentative ruling is AFFIRMED and Plaintiffs’ 8 motion is DENIED. 9 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 10 A. Deposition of Merle Wayne Hutton 11 On May 21, 2015, Mr. Smith took the deposition of Merle Wayne Hutton. (See Doc. 77, 12 Exh. A (Transcript of the Deposition of Merle Wayne Hutton, “Depo. Trans.”).) A review of the 13 transcript reflects that while Mr. Smith apologized to Defendant Hutton at one point for his 14 “suppressed” voice due to his “not feeling as well as [he] should,” (Depo. Trans., 25:12-17), Mr. 15 Smith made no statement indicating that he was too ill to finish the deposition, nor did he request 16 to continue the deposition to a later date due to his illness. Two breaks were taken, one at 17 Defendant Hutton’s request, (21:16-19), and one at Mr. Smith’s request, to “wrap [his line of 18 questioning] up[,]” (Depo. Trans., 73:15-17 (Mr. Smith asked opposing counsel to “Give me 19 about five minutes because I’m going to wrap it up.”).) In calling the deposition to a close, Mr. 20 Smith stated, “I don’t have any other questions at this point[,]” and the deposition was 21 “adjourned” after approximately two hours of questioning. (Depo. Trans., 76:13-14.) Mr. Smith 22 made no statement indicating that he was ill and needed to suspend the deposition for the day, and 23 no discussion or agreement between counsel to set a second day to continue the deposition was 24 made on the record. (See Depo. Trans.) 25 // 26 // 27 28 2 Despite that Defendants’ oppositions were not timely filed, the Court has exercised its discretion to consider the arguments set forth in Defendants’ opposition briefs and will not strike them from the docket as untimely. 2 1 B. Procedural Background 2 Mr. Smith conducted the Hutton deposition on May 21, 2015, during a period when his 3 health was declining. Ultimately, Mr. Smith passed away within two months of the deposition, on 4 July 21, 2015, due to advanced pancreatic cancer. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel Kay 5 Parker assumed Mr. Smith’s case load, including Plaintiffs’ action. (See Doc. 67, pp. 2-3.) 6 On September 22, 2015, the Court issued an order vacating the scheduling order and 7 granting Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue all deadlines. (Doc. 70.) On October 16, 8 2015, the Court extended the fact discovery deadline to November 20, 2015, to permit Plaintiffs to 9 conclude any discovery which Plaintiffs’ former counsel Mr. Smith “either planned to do and 10 disclosed to Defendants prior to his passing, or began and left unfinished due to his passing.” 11 (Doc. 76; see also Doc. 70 (noting that because Mr. Smith had been “essentially medically 12 incapacitated from late June 2015 to his death in late July 2015, extensive discovery has occurred 13 but is incomplete” an extension of time to conclude discovery was warranted).) Plaintiffs did not 14 raise the issue of redeposing Defendant Hutton with the Court. The parties were instructed that 15 “non-expert discovery is not being opened for an unlimited purpose” and “[d]iscovery previously 16 competed will not be reopened.” (Doc. 76 (emphases in original).) The parties were also 17 cautioned that “[n]o further extensions of the fact discovery cutoff will be entertained by the 18 Court.” (Doc. 76.) 19 On November 20, 2015, the non-expert discovery cutoff set in the Court’s amended 20 scheduling order, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion “to continue with the deposition of Merle 21 Wayne Hutton,” along with a single-page “background and facts,” a single-page “points and 22 authorities,” and copies of the deposition transcript and meet and confer communications between 23 the parties. (Doc. 77.) On November 24, 2015, the Court issued its tentative order on Plaintiffs’ 24 motion, noting that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated good cause to warrant a second deposition of 25 Defendant Hutton based on the information provided. (Doc. 81.) Plaintiffs did not withdraw their 26 motion, nor did they file any supplemental briefing to demonstrate that good cause did indeed 27 exist for reopening the deposition of Defendant Hutton. (See Docket.) Defendants filed untimely 28 oppositions to the motion. (See Docs. 84-86.) 3 1 2 III. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the taking of depositions by oral 3 examination. A party must obtain leave of the Court to conduct a deposition “if the parties have 4 not stipulated to the deposition” and “the deponent has already been deposed in the case.” Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). The Court shall grant such leave “to the extent consistent with the 6 principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2),” which allows courts to limit discovery in instances in which 7 the court determines that (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; 10 (ii) 11 (iii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). 8 9 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Whether to reopen a deposition is a matter committed to the Court’s 13 discretion. Archer v. City of Taft, No. 1:12-cv-00261-AWI-JLT, 2014 WL 5216653, at *1 (E.D. 14 Cal. Oct. 14, 2014); Couch v. Wan, No. CV-F-08-1621-LJO-DLB, 2012 WL 4433470, at *3 (E.D. 15 Cal. Sept. 24, 2012). Without a showing of need or good reason, courts generally will not require 16 a deponent’s reopened deposition. Id. 17 18 IV. DISCUSSION A review of the Hutton Deposition reveals that, despite any infirmity from which Mr. 19 Smith was suffering, the interaction between the deponent, opposing counsel, and Mr. Smith was 20 “lively[,] with both parties explaining in full the[ir] questions and the[ir] answers.” Archer, 2014 21 WL 5216653, at *2. (See Depo. Trans.) Further, at the conclusion of the deposition, Mr. Smith 22 “did not comment about any difficulty experienced at the deposition and, from the face of the 23 transcript, the Court sees no substantive factual area not addressed.” Id. 24 Plaintiffs nonetheless claim a second deposition is necessary to obtain further information 25 from Defendant Hutton. Plaintiffs do not specify what further information is sought, despite that 26 Plaintiffs describe Defendant Hutton as “the alleged perpetrator” whose “deposition is 27 unquestionably key discovery[,]” thus leaving the Court to speculate as to what additional 28 questions Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks from Defendant Hutton. (See Doc. 77, pp. 2-3.) In addition to 4 1 failing to specify upon what additional topics Plaintiffs seek to depose Defendant Hutton, 2 Plaintiffs fail to explain in even general terms how Mr. Smith’s deposition of Defendant Hutton 3 was inadequate or insufficient. (See Doc. 77, pp. 2-3.) 4 Mr. Smith was an experienced, competent attorney, and despite that the deposition lasted 5 nearly two hours, the fact that Mr. Smith did not depose Defendant Hutton the full seven hours 6 permitted under the Federal Rules does not de facto demonstrate that the deposition was not 7 comprehensive or efficient. While Plaintiffs emphasize that Mr. Smith “adjourned” the deposition 8 by stating “I don’t have any other questions at this point,” rather than using language 9 “concluding” or “ending” the deposition (Doc. 77, p. 2 (italics added), this language does not 10 indicate that the deposition was to remain open and continue on another day. Mr. Smith did not 11 make any statement on the record that the deposition was to be continued at another time had he 12 planned to do so or needed to suspend the deposition for the day. Instead, before taking a break at 13 the end of the deposition, Mr. Smith asked opposing counsel to “Give me about five minutes 14 because I’m going to wrap it up.” (Depo. Trans., 73:15-17 (italics added).) This language does 15 not indicate that Mr. Smith believed he was unfinished or needed more time to finish the 16 deposition at a later date. 17 In calling the deposition to a close, Mr. Smith also stated, “I don’t have any other questions 18 at this point.” (Depo. Trans., 76:13-14.) The use of “at this point” does not indicate that Mr. 19 Smith intended to continue the deposition at another time, given that he made no statement on the 20 record indicating any meet and confer with opposing counsel or discussion of the parties’ 21 availability for a second deposition date. (See Depo. Trans.) Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the 22 duration of the deposition is not dipositive. Mr. Smith was competent to state, on the record, 23 whether he was indeed finished, and whether he needed to suspend any further questioning due to 24 his illness. 25 Plaintiffs also note that defense counsel interposed several objections of “vague” and/or 26 “ambiguous” during the deposition, repeatedly asking for clarification of the questions posed by 27 Mr. Smith. (Doc. 77, p. 2 (stating opposing counsel had articulated forty objections on the record 28 within a two hour period).) However, objections to “vagueness” or requests for clarification alone 5 1 do not demonstrate that “more than half of the deposition questions were objectionable” or that 2 Mr. Smith was incompetent. (Doc. 77, p. 2.) A review of the record reveals that most of the 3 objections and conferring between counsel centered around clarifying the context of certain 4 conversations (see, e.g., Doc. 77, Exh. A, at pp. 18:22-25, 25:25-26:8, 28:10-15 (clarifying that the 5 deponent was being asked about conversations specifically regarding Plaintiff Goins’ sexual 6 harassment claims)), the meaning of certain terms Mr. Smith used in his question (see, e.g., id. at 7 pp. 24:18-19, 38:10-13), or admonishing Defendant Hutton to only answer to those matters within 8 his knowledge or recollection (see, e.g., id. at pp. 30:23-24; 35:25-36:6). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ 9 contention, the interposing of routine objections during a deposition by experienced counsel does 10 not undermine Mr. Smith’s competence in deposing Defendant Hutton. 11 The factors of Rule 26(b)(2)(C) also weigh against reopening the deposition. Any 12 information now claimed to be missing could have been obtained through written discovery by 13 Mr. Smith following the deposition, as the parties had previously stipulated to extend fact 14 discovery through June 1, 2015. (Doc. 50.) The fact that Mr. Smith did not seek to propound 15 further written discovery, or even indicate in meet and confer communications with the defense 16 that he intended to do so, indicates that Mr. Smith believed that discovery regarding Defendant 17 Hutton had been completed. Nothing in the record before the Court indicates otherwise. 18 Ms. Parker substituted as Plaintiffs’ counsel on August 14, 2015. At the scheduling 19 conference two months later, Ms. Parker was cautioned that the Court would not entertain further 20 extensions absent a showing of cause. Significantly, despite that admonition, Plaintiffs’ motion to 21 reopen Defendant Hutton’s deposition fails to identify what further information Plaintiffs seek in 22 even the most general terms, the importance of that information to the issues presented in the case, 23 or to address the burden and expense of reopening the deposition. (See Doc. 77, p. 2 (noting only 24 that Defendant Hutton’s “deposition is unquestionably key discovery”).) The Court cannot 25 speculate about what Plaintiffs would seek in a further deposition of Defendant Hutton, and 26 therefore is unable to find that reopening the deposition of Defendant Hutton is warranted. 27 Archer, 2014 WL 5216654 at *3. 28 // 6 1 The undersigned is sympathetic to the difficulty of accepting a new case midway through 2 the litigation – it is both possible and likely that had Ms. Parker taken the deposition of Defendant 3 Hutton herself, she may have asked different or additional questions or taken longer than two 4 hours. However, Ms. Parker’s second-guessing of Mr. Smith’s deposition style is not sufficient to 5 demonstrate good cause that Defendant Hutton’s deposition be reopened. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 26(b)(2)(C). Although there is no specific limit on the number of times a person or party may be 7 deposed, repeat depositions are disfavored, except in certain circumstances. Graebner v. James 8 River Corp., 130 F.R.D. 440, 441 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Absent a sufficient showing of need or good 9 reason to justify the second deposition, such as the “long passage of time with new evidence or 10 new theories added to the complaint,” a court generally will not order a reopening of a deposition. 11 Archer, 2014 WL 5216653 at *3; Couch, 2012 WL 4433470 at *3; Graebner, 130 F.R.D. at 441; 12 Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 690 (D. Kan. 1996.). Likewise, the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) 13 factors weigh against reopening the deposition. Plaintiffs have failed to show sufficient 14 justification to reopen the deposition of Defendant Hutton, and therefore the Court exercises its 15 discretion to decline to reopen the deposition of Defendant Hutton. Archer, 2014 WL 5216653 at 16 *3; Couch, 2012 WL 4433470 at *3; Dixon, 164 F.R.D. at 690. 17 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the deposition of Defendant Merle 18 19 Wayne Hutton is DENIED. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 22, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

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?