Strauch et al v. Computer Sciences Corp

Filing 289

ORDER: The Court overrules Defendant's Objection 173 and approves and adopts the Ruling on Number of Depositions 171 limiting the number of depositions to 60, under the time limit imposed in Scheduling Order 256 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/8/16. (Harris, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOSEPH STRAUCH and TIMOTHY COLBY, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 3:14cv956 (JBA)
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Ruling Overruling Defendant’s Objection to Ruling on Number of Depositions [Doc. #171]
Defendant has timely objected to the ruling of Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis setting
out a sliding scale approach for delimiting the number of depositions for a representative sample
of opt-in Plaintiffs.

Defendant contends generally that the designated cap of 60 depositions for

second and third-tier Plaintiffs in the three tier approach agreed to by the parties unfairly impairs
its ability to defend with individualized discovery on issues including actual job characteristics
and duties where there are potentially 4000 class members.

The sampling size was then

unknown, but as of November 24, 2015 there are 1047 opt-in plaintiffs.
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling [Doc. # 171] and the parties’ respective
briefing on this objection, it is abundantly clear that Magistrate Judge Margolis’s ruling is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).

Not only is the limitation

reasonable and appropriately reflective of the proportionality requirement for discovery, but it
affords Defendant the opportunity to depose any Plaintiff submitting a declaration or identified
as a witness, as well as a sampling other opt-in Plaintiffs, two–thirds of whom Defendant may

select.

In addition, Defendant may depose all named Plaintiffs whose number does not count

against this limitation.
Notwithstanding Defendant’s position, which is rejected, that Plaintiffs should have no
selection role, they will select only one-third of the deponents, and if Defendant identifies
declarants, affiants or trial witnesses who were not deposed as part of the court-ordered
limitation, such individuals may be deposed even if above the numerical cap for deposition
which has been set.
Given the rationale for the initial limitation and the above provision for add-on
depositions, the Court overrules Defendant’s Objection [Doc. # 173] and approves and adopts
the Ruling on Number of Depositions [Doc. # 171] limiting the number of depositions to 60,
under the time limit imposed in Scheduling Order [Doc. # 256].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____/s/_____________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: January 8, 2016