Eaglesmith et al v. Ray et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 4/25/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 77 motion for leave of court is partially granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to depose the following individuals for a maximum of four hours each: Daniele DeBoever, Tom Goss and Brad Baker. Plaintiffs' 77 motion for leave of court is denied as to Marilyn Christiansen, Nathan Bales and Jim Lake. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

JERALD CLINTON EAGLESMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

vs.

12

No. CIV 2:11-cv-0098-JAM-JFM

JEFF RAY, et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER
/

14
15

On April 19, 2012, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Peter

16

Haberfeld appeared for plaintiffs. Brian Duus appeared for defendants. Upon review of the joint

17

discovery statement, discussion with counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT

18

FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
DISCUSSION

19
20

Plaintiffs seek leave to exceed the presumptive limits of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)

21

to conduct six additional depositions.1 Rule 30(a)(2) provides that, when a party seeks leave to

22

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

23

26(b)(2). A party seeking leave of court must make a “particularized showing” why the

24
25
26

1

Although plaintiffs initially requested leave to conduct seven additional depositions,
counsel for plaintiffs represented at the April 19, 2012 hearing that they seek only six additional
depositions.
1

1

discovery is necessary. C & C Jewelry Mfg., Inc. v. West, 2011 WL 767839, * 1 (N.D. Cal.

2

2011) (citing Archer Danield Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D.

3

Minn. 1999)). Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), a court must limit discovery if it determines (1) the

4

discovery sought is cumulative or duplicative, or can better be obtained from some other source;

5

(2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Here, the particulars of this case justify exceeding the presumptive limit. The

10

action involves multiple plaintiffs, multiple defendants and multiple unrelated incidents.

11

Plaintiffs have made the particularized showing for leave to exceed the presumptive deposition

12

limits as to three of the six individuals whom they wish to depose. Therefore, this request will

13

be granted in part.

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ March 28,

15

2012 motion for leave of court is partially granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to depose the

16

following individuals for a maximum of four hours each: Daniele DeBoever, Tom Goss and

17

Brad Baker. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave of court is denied as to Marilyn Christiansen, Nathan

18

Bales and Jim Lake.

19

DATED: April 25, 2012.

20
21
22
23

/014;eagl0098.disc5

24
25
26
2