Tillman v. Ally Financial Inc.

Filing 61

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 59 Defendant's Time-Sensitive Renewed Motion to (1) Allow the Deposition of Expert Robert Biggerstaff on Shortened Time, and to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Until 10 Days Fol lowing the Completion of that Deposition; or in the Alternative, (2) to Set the Opposition Date on December 13, 2016 by Agreement of the Parties. Defendant shall have up to and including December 13, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Production of Discovery (Doc. 47). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 12/7/2016. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DONELL L. TILLMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-313-FtM-99CM

ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant's Time-Sensitive
Renewed Motion to (1) Allow the Deposition of Expert Robert Biggerstaff on
Shortened Time, and to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Until 10 Days
Following the Completion of that Deposition; or in the Alternative, (2) to Set the
Opposition Date on December 13, 2016 by Agreement of the Parties (Doc. 59) filed on
December 1, 2016. Plaintiff responded in opposition on December 6, 2016. Doc. 60.
Defendant opposes Defendant’s deposition of Mr. Biggerstaff on shortened time, but
agrees to Defendant’s request to have until December 13, 2016 to respond to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 47). Docs. 59 at 4-5, 60.
I.

Background

On June 28, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 1).
Doc. 29 at 2.

On October 18, 2016, the Court entered a Case Management and

Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) setting the deadline for disclosure of expert reports for

Plaintiff to August 18, 2017 and for Defendant to September 18, 2017, the discovery
deadline to October 20, 2017, and a trial term of May 7, 2018. Doc. 54.
On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to provide
complete and substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 6 and
Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2 (“Motion to Compel”). Doc. 47 at 1. Instead
of filing a response to the Motion to Compel, on October 7, 2016, Defendant filed a
motion to stay further briefing on the Motion to Compel or in the alternative, permit
the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, Robert Biggerstaff (“Biggerstaff”), on shortened
time and/or to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the Motion to Compel until
at least ten (10) days following the deposition (the “Motion to Stay”). Doc. 48 at 1.
On October 18, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s
motion, staying discovery until December 2, 2016, to allow sufficient time for the
resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 29).

Doc. 55.

The Court also

extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for class certification to January 12,
2017. Id. at 7. On November 30, 2016, Senior United States District Judge John
E. Steele denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 29). Doc. 58.
II.

Analysis

On December 1, 2016, Defendant filed the present motion seeking that the
Court permit Biggerstaff’s deposition on shortened time and allow ten (10) days
following the deposition for Defendant to respond to the Motion to Compel. Doc. 59
at 3. Defendant reasserts its arguments in the Motion to Stay. Id. Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeks the entire universe of Defendant’s

-2-

confidential customer data based on Biggerstaff’s declaration.

Doc. 48 at 6.

Defendant asserts that although Biggerstaff represents to the Court that collecting
Defendant’s requested customer data is easy, he has not reviewed Defendant’s
systems and does not understand how Defendant’s business operates.

Id. at 7.

Defendant seeks to depose Biggerstaff because of the importance of Biggerstaff’s
declaration to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the unusual nature of his opinion, and
the extreme burden Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel imposes. Id. at 8.

Alternatively,

Defendant seeks to have until December 13, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel. Doc. 59 at 4.
In his response, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendant’s
request to depose Biggerstaff on three grounds.

Doc. 60 at 1-2.

First, Plaintiff

argues that Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on the ground of
undue burden in August 2016. Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant does not
need to depose Biggerstaff to support its objections made two months before Plaintiff
mentioned Biggerstaff in its Motion to Compel.

Id. at 1-2.

Second, Defendant

refused to confer with Biggerstaff although Defendant had an opportunity to do so
before Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel. Id. at 2. Lastly, Defendant does not
allege that it would be prejudiced to respond to the Motion to Compel on or before
December 13, 2016, as the parties agreed. Id. Given the parties’ arguments and
Plaintiff’s upcoming deadline to file a motion for class certification, the Court will
order Defendant to respond to the Motion to Compel on or before December 13, 2016.

-3-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant's Time-Sensitive Renewed Motion to (1) Allow the Deposition

of Expert Robert Biggerstaff on Shortened Time, and to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Until 10 Days Following the Completion of that Deposition; or in
the Alternative, (2) to Set the Opposition Date on December 13, 2016 by Agreement
of the Parties (Doc. 59) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2.

Defendant shall have up to and including December 13, 2016 to respond

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Production of Discovery (Doc. 47).
Defendant’s remaining requests are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 7th day of December,
2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-