Rhodes et al v. Lazy Flamingo 2, Inc.
Filing
215
ORDER granting 210 Defendant's Motion to Compel Update Depositions of the Plaintiffs. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose to permit Defendant to conduct update depositions of Plaintiffs Vincent and Diana Rhodes. The depositions shall be limited to one hour each and shall be conducted by telephone. Defendant shall conduct the depositions by October 12, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/15/2018. (APH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
VINCENT J. RHODES and DIANA
RHODES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:14-cv-561-FtM-29CM
LAZY FLAMINGO 2, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant's Motion to
Compel Update Depositions of the Plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2018.
Doc. 210.
Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition on June 5, 2018. Doc. 212. For the reasons
stated below, the motion is granted.
I.
Background
On September 25, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant Lazy
Flamingo 2, Inc. (“Lazy Flamingo”). Doc. 1. On February 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint against Defendant alleging violations of Florida state law
and claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. Doc. 32. The
Amended Complaint alleges Plaintiff Vincent Rhodes suffers from chronic liver
disease and contracted a severe bacterial infection shortly after eating raw oysters at
Lazy Flamingo on July 14, 2012. Id. ¶¶ 8, 13, 17, 19. Plaintiffs claim Defendant
violated Florida law by failing to properly warn Plaintiffs of “the serious risk of illness
or death posed by consuming . . . uncooked oysters” generally, and of the greater risk
for individuals with chronic liver disease. Id. ¶¶ 9-12. Plaintiffs seek payment for
damages that include Vincent Rhodes’ past and future medical expenses related to
the illness and “Diana Rhodes’ loss of her husband’s consortium, society and
support[.]” Id. at 7.
Defendant last deposed Plaintiffs regarding the substantive issues in the case
on March 10, 2015, and Plaintiffs testified at trial in November 2016. Doc. 210 at 1.
On November 18, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. Doc. 158.
The judgment was then reversed and remanded on appeal, and on May 1, 2018, the
Court re-set the case for the December 3, 2018 trial term. Doc. 208. Defendant filed
the present motion two weeks after entry of the Court’s May 1 Order. Doc. 210.
II.
Discussion
Defendant seeks to compel update depositions of Plaintiffs prior to the
December 2018 trial and asks the Court’s permission to depose Vincent and Diana
Rhodes by telephone for one hour each.
Doc. 210 at 1.
Defendant argues the
depositions are necessary to ascertain Vincent Rhodes’ “current medical condition”
and the “current state of allegations” relating to Diana Rhodes’ loss of consortium
claim. Id. Both subjects relate to Plaintiffs’ request for monetary damages in the
Amended Complaint. Doc. 32 at 7. Defendant further asserts it will be “severely
prejudiced” at trial if the Court disallows the requested depositions. Doc. 210 at 2.
Plaintiffs do not directly address the damages issue in their response.
However, Plaintiffs argue their allegations have remained “completely unchanged”
since the filing of the Amended Complaint in February 2015 and thus “[t]here is
-2-
nothing new for the defense to learn.” Doc. 212 at 1, 3-4. Plaintiffs further argue
Defendant has not shown why update depositions are necessary or how Defendant
would be prejudiced if the motion to compel is denied. Id. at 3-4. Further, Plaintiffs
assert Defendant failed to follow preconditions for conducting update depositions set
by Rules 16 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 2. Specifically,
Plaintiffs note Defendant did not seek to amend the Case Management and
Scheduling Order or seek leave of Court for the update depositions prior to filing the
present motion. Id.
Rule 16 requires a showing of good cause for modification of a court’s
scheduling order, including to reopen discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Regarding
update depositions, or re-deposing an individual, Rule 30 provides that “[a] party
must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent
with Rule 26(b)(2) . . . if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and . . . the
deponent has already been deposed in the case.” Hooks v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., Inc.,
No. 3:13-CV-891-J-34JBT, 2015 WL 12838794, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2015)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)). Under Rule 26, courts may deny leave if (1) the
update depositions are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or the information is
obtainable from another less burdensome source; (2) the party seeking the depositions
has had ample time to obtain the information; or (3) the burden or expense of the
update depositions outweighs their likely benefit. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
District courts have broad discretion when managing their cases, including discovery
and scheduling. Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th
-3-
Cir. 2001); Young v. Smith, No. 3:07-CV-00854, 2016 WL 1089132, at *2 (M.D. Penn.
March 21, 2016); see also Hooks, 2015 WL 12838794 at *2 (“[t]he availability of a
second deposition . . . is left to the sound discretion of [the district court].”).
In Young, the plaintiff high school student filed an action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the defendant, the plaintiff’s former teacher, alleging the defendant
discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of sex and seeking twenty-five
thousand dollars in compensatory damages for the harm caused to the plaintiff.
2016 WL 108132 at *1. Following the reversal of two separate jury verdicts in 2011
and 2014, a third trial was scheduled in 2016. Id. Prior to the third trial, the
defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to submit to a “limited” update deposition,
arguing it was “necessary to determine the extent and scope of [the plaintiff’s]
damages in the intervening years” since the 2011 and 2014 trials.
Id.
The
defendant also agreed to limit the deposition to two hours at a convenient location for
the plaintiff. Id. The court granted the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff’s last
deposition occurred several years prior, there was “reason to believe that [the
plaintiff’s] personal circumstances have changed significantly since then[,]” and the
information sought by the deposition “speaks directly to the element of damages[.]”
Id. at 2. The court further noted that the proposed deposition would not affect the
trial date or other case scheduling matters, and that the defendant agreed to
reasonable limitations on the deposition. Id.
Similarly here, Defendant seeks to compel update depositions of the two named
Plaintiffs, Vincent and Diana Rhodes. Doc. 210 at 1. Defendant represents that
-4-
the purpose of the update depositions is to ascertain whether there has been any
change in Vincent Rhodes’ medical condition (i.e., increased medical expenses) or in
Diana Rhodes’ loss of consortium of her husband since the March 2015 depositions or
the November 2016 trial. Id. Like in Young, the information Defendant seeks to
obtain from these depositions is directly related to the element of damages. See id.;
2016 WL 108132 at *2. Further, like in Young, the proposed update depositions here
are limited in nature: Defendant seeks two one-hour depositions to be conducted by
telephone. Doc. 210 at 1; 2016 WL 108132 at *1. Thus, the Court finds good cause
under Rule 16 to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of the requested update
depositions.
Further, the limits on discovery in Rule 26(b)(2) do not prevent the update
depositions requested here. First, the requested depositions are not unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative because the information sought is new information—
changes in Plaintiffs’ circumstances since the March 2015 depositions and November
2016 trial. Doc. 210 at 1. Defendant also has not had ample opportunity to obtain
this information because of the procedural posture of the case and the nature of the
information sought. Further, Defendant filed this motion promptly following the
Court’s May 1, 2018 Order setting the case for trial in December 2018. Doc. 208.
Finally, the burden of the proposed depositions does not outweigh their likely benefit.
Plaintiffs are not required to travel for the depositions, and the subject of the
depositions relates directly to the issue of damages in the December retrial. Doc.
210.
-5-
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Update Depositions of the Plaintiffs (Doc.
210) is GRANTED.
2.
Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose to permit Defendant to
conduct update depositions of Plaintiffs Vincent and Diana Rhodes. The depositions
shall be limited to one hour each and shall be conducted by telephone.
3.
Defendant shall conduct the depositions by October 12, 2018.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 15th day of August, 2018.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-6-
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?