C. et al v. Department of Children and Families

Filing 16

ORDER denying without prejudice 14 Plaintiffs' Motion to Exceed Deposition Limit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 5/31/2018. (SMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
V. D. C. and S. C.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-1697-T-27JSS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exceed 10 Deposition Limit
(“Motion”) (Dkt. 14) and Defendant’s response in opposition (Dkt. 15). In the Motion, Plaintiffs
seek an order granting Plaintiffs “leave to take up to an additional fifteen (15) depositions pending
further discovery” in excess of the limit established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. (Dkt.
14 at 2.) Plaintiffs specifically seek to take depositions of Defendant’s employees, hospital
employees, law enforcement, day care workers, and other fact witnesses who may have knowledge
of Defendant’s involvement in the relationship between L.X.C., a minor, and the minor’s
biological mother. (Id.)
Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) requires leave of court to take a deposition when “the parties have not
stipulated to the deposition” and “the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions being
taken . . . by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i); M.D. Discovery
II.A.1 (emphasis in original) (“Rule 30(a)(2)(A), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, limits each side
to no more than ten depositions unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”) Leave for additional
depositions must be granted “to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(a)(2). Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), “the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery” if
the court determines as follows:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the
information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the
scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Rule 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as permitting parties to
obtain non-privileged material “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case,” which requires consideration of “the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further,
“[t]he party seeking leave to take additional depositions must also justify the necessity of the
depositions previously taken without leave of court.” F.D.I.C. v. Nason Yeager Gerson White &
Lioce, P.A., No. 2:13-CV-208-FTM-38, 2014 WL 1047245, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2014).
Plaintiffs argue that they have no other means of obtaining relevant testimony of witnesses
that do, or may have, knowledge of the relationship between Defendant and L.X.C.’s biological
mother and that the benefit of deposing the witnesses outweighs the burden imposed by the
depositions. (Dkt. 14 at 4.) Plaintiffs state that, as of its filing the Motion, they have not taken
any depositions but are in the process of setting numerous depositions. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue that
the testimony of multiple witnesses is relevant and that it “is more than reasonable” that they will
need to take more than ten depositions. (Id.) In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’
request is premature because Plaintiffs have not yet taken ten depositions. (Dkt. 15 at 4.)
The Court finds that the Motion is premature because Plaintiffs have yet to take ten
depositions. Jones-Walton v. Villas at Lake Eve Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-995-ORL-2-

22TBS, 2016 WL 6071736, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016) (denying defendants’ motion to
enlarge the number of permissible depositions as premature because the motion was “filed before
the movant exhausted the ten depositions provided by Rule 30”); F.D.I.C., 2014 WL 1047245, at
*3 (“Motions for leave to take additional depositions filed before a party has exhausted its
presumptive ten depositions have been found to be premature by courts in this District.”).
Specifically, because Plaintiffs have not taken any depositions, the Court is unable to evaluate
whether the number of depositions Plaintiffs request to take would necessarily exceed ten, whether
the desired depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of discovery already
obtained, whether the discovery sought could be obtained from other sources, or whether the
benefit of additional depositions would outweigh their burden or expense. Further, Plaintiffs have
not identified the proposed deponents, who Plaintiffs generally identify as Defendant’s employees,
hospital employees, law enforcement, day care workers, and other fact witnesses. (Dkt. 14 at 3.)
Thus, the issue of whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to take twenty-five depositions is not
ripe for determination.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exceed 10 Deposition Limit (Dkt.
14) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 31, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-