Rogers et al v. City and County of Denver

Filing 101

ORDER on Defendant's 98 Motion for Protective Order: denied as to the notices concerning payroll, timekeeping and overtime and granted as to the notice concerning affirmative defenses. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 2/24/2009.(rpmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 07-cv-00541-RPM NICK ROGERS, AL ARCHULETA, WILFRED BELIVEAU, HARRY BLOODWORTH, MICHAEL CODY, TIMOTHY DELSORDO, CORY DUNAHUE, RUSSELL DYMOND, JR., ROBERT FREUND, MICHAEL GABRIELE, PAUL GOFF, ALEXANDER M. GOLSTON, JEFFREY MARTINEZ, MICHAEL MOSCO, PHILLIP NEWTON, and ANDREW RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, Defendant. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ____________________________________________________________________________ On February 20, 2009, the defendant City and County of Denver filed a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(c) for a protective order regarding number of depositions, addressing the three notices of deposition pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6), identified as payroll, timekeeping and overtime and affirmative defenses. The stated ground is that given these added depositions, the plaintiffs are exceeding the ten deposition limitation agreed to for non-expert depositions. This issue is also raised in the Supplemental Scheduling Order, submitted on February 23, 2009, which has now been signed as of this date. To resolve this dispute and enable discovery to proceed as contemplated in the new Supplemental Scheduling Order, the Court finds and concludes that the notices concerning payroll and timekeeping and overtime are appropriate

even though it may be necessary for the defendant to identify more than one person to respond to the inquiries raised and that the need for these additional deponents should not preclude the taking of the depositions despite the agreement concerning the number of depositions. The Court also finds and concludes that the notice of deposition concerning affirmative defenses seeks support for the contentions of counsel raised in the pleadings in this action and are not appropriate for deposition. The matters in the affirmative defenses are expected to be addressed in the motions for summary judgment that are contemplated. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for protective order is denied as to the notices concerning payroll, timekeeping and overtime and granted as to the notice concerning affirmative defenses. DATED: February 24th, 2009 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch __________________________ Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

2