Picco et al v. Glenn et al
MINUTE ORDER granting 93 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the SupplementalDepositions of Brandi Cook, M.A. and Karen Gentry, R.N. and for Appropriate Sanctions Against Defendant Glenwood Medical Associates. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/9/2014.(klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02858-RM-MJW
GLENN PICCO and
KELLY R. GLENN, D.O.,
VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
BRUCE D. LIPPMAN, II, M.D., and
GLENWOOD MEDICAL ASSOCIATES,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Supplemental
Depositions of Brandi Cook, M.A. and Karen Gentry, R.N. and for Appropriate Sanctions
Against Defendant Glenwood Medical Associates (docket no. 93) is GRANTED after
careful consideration of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), Beecham v. City of West Sacramento,
No. CIV S-07-1115 JAM EFB, 2008 WL 4661457, *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2008), and for
the following reasons outlined below.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs may take a third supplemental
deposition of Brandi Cook, M.A., and Karen Gentry, R.N. Each deposition shall be
limited to 45 minutes. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
I find that Defendant Glenwood Medical Associates’ (“GMA”) argument that the
parties agreed to limit the scope of the second depositions of Brandi Cook, M.A., and
Karen Gentry, R.N., to only questions about the untimely produced handwritten section
of Ms. Cook’s employee review and not to the relation of such exhibit to other testimony
and evidence in this case is not supported by the e-mails as relied upon by GMA in
exhibit A attached to GMA’s Response (docket no. 95). The only agreement in such
e-mails is an agreement to limit the length of the second depositions to 45 minutes.
Accordingly, the evidentiary objections as outlined in detail within the subject motion
(docket no. 93) by GMA are overruled. In addition, I find that Plaintiffs, during these
third supplemental depositions of Brandi Cook, M.A., and Karen Gentry, R.N., shall be
permitted to ask questions regarding the untimely produced handwritten section of Ms.
Cook’s employee review and its impact, connection, and relationship to prior exhibits
and testimony. I further find that the questions that were objected to by GMA as
outlined the subject motion (docket no. 93) are relevant and may lead to admissible
evidence at trial. Further, I find that Plaintiffs have established good cause to allow a
third supplemental deposition of Brandi Cook, M.A., and Karen Gentry, R.N. within the
scope outlined above. Lastly, I find, in this court’s discretion, that under the facts and
circumstances of this dispute concerning the scope of the second depositions of Brandi
Cook, M.A., and Karen Gentry, R.N., that to impose sanctions would not be appropriate
under the totality of the circumstances of this dispute. See Carroll v. Allstate Fire &
Casualty Ins. Co., No. 12-cv-00007-WJM-KLM, 2014 WL 859238, at *7 (D. Colo. Mar. 4,
2014) (citing Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletics Ass’n, 475 F.3d 524, 538 (3rd Cir.
Date: July 9, 2014
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?