Johnson v. School District No. 1 in the County of Denver and State of Colorado et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Magistrate Judge to Stay Relief Granted in Discovery Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/7/2014. (cpear)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02950-MSK-MEH
LISA M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE COUNTY OF DENVER AND STATE OF COLORADO, and
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO STAY RELIEF GRANTED IN DISCOVERY ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Magistrate Judge to Stay Relief
Granted in Discovery Order [filed April 3, 2014; docket #114]. The motion is referred to this Court
for disposition. (Docket #115.) The matter is fully briefed, and I addressed this issue with the
parties at the hearing in this case on April 2, 2014. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in
part and denies in part Defendants’ motion.
Discovery in this case was originally due on August 26, 2013. This allowed the parties a full
six months of discovery. On July 3, 2013, the discovery deadline was extended to November 4,
2013. At the parties’ joint request, on October 21, 2013, the discovery deadline was extended to
December 30, 2013. On that last date of discovery, nearly 15 months after the case was originally
filed, the Defendants submitted supplemental disclosures identifying 10 new witnesses they contend
have discoverable information. They now seek to prevent Plaintiff from engaging in discovery
concerning these witnesses. Their position is untenable.

As a remedy for Defendants’ conduct, I permitted Plaintiff to engage in limited discovery
involving these new witnesses, allowing five questions per witness, five requests for documents per
witness, and five requests for admission per witness, along with the opportunity to take the
witnesses’ depositions. Moreover, I limited the depositions to three hours per witness. This is the
discovery that the Defendants seek to prevent. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have no
presumptive limits for the latter two categories of written discovery requests, and I do not view a
witness providing answers to five questions as “inordinate.” The fact that these things add up is due
to the sheer number of witnesses that Defendants disclosed on the very last day of discovery.
In retrospect, I should have looked more suspiciously at whether such a late disclosure was
bad faith, because now, with the hindsight of Defendants’ efforts to prevent Plaintiffs from engaging
in discovery concerning the belated disclosures, Defendants’ motives appear suspect.
Notwithstanding, I view the opportunity to conduct depositions of these relevant witnesses as
paramount, with the written discovery less so. Therefore, I will grant the Emergency Motion to
Stay insofar as it concerns written discovery, but I will deny it regarding the order to conduct
depositions. Depositions of these newly identified material witnesses is essential to preserving
Plaintiff’s right to prepare for trial.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 7th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

2