Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp

Filing 1246

ORDER granting in part 1233 Motion to Extend the Deposition of Peter Karutz. Mr. Karutz shall submit to deposition as set forth in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/5/2019. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

WHITESELL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
HUSQVARNA, A.B., and HUSQVARNA
OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC.,

CV 103-050

*
*
*
*

Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Extend
the Deposition of Peter Karutz to Two Days.
Corporation opposes the motion.

Plaintiff Whitesell

The Court resolves the matter as

follows.

In the case. Plaintiff has disclosed an Expert Report of Peter
J. Karutz, dated April 12, 2019.^

The Expert Report delineates

the damages calculation related to Plaintiff's claims against both
Defendant

Husqvarna

Outdoor

Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
distinct
different

calculations
claims

but

as
also

they
to

Products,

Inc.

and

Defendant

The Expert Report shows several
relate
the

not

only

different

to

Plaintiff's

defendants.

More

1 Plaintiff has also disclosed an expert report of Timothy Hicks.
Defendants represent that they may not need to depose Mr. Hicks
because he only intends to opine on how much certain parts weigh.
(Defs.' Mot., Doc. No. 1233, SISI 1 & 2.)

specifically, the Expert Report has separate calculations and
different methodologies with respect to Plaintiff's claims for
Brunner Inventory, Matrix Inventory, Obsolete Inventory, PhaseOut Inventory, Unpaid or Underpaid Invoices, Unearned Rebates,
Pricing Discrepancies, and Unpaid Engineering and Tooling Costs.
The total damages calculation on these claims is $23,092,479.
Also, while the court record does not contain the exhibits and

schedules upon which Mr. Karutz relies, the Court can only imagine

that categories such as invoices, inventory records, and lists of
assigned selling prices and costs are voluminous and extremely
detailed.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d), the deposition

of a witness is limited to one day of 7 hours.

This duration

period may be extended by the Court ''if needed to fairly examine
the deponent . . . ."

Fed.

R. Civ.

P.

30(d).

The Advisory

Committee Note discussing the extension of a deposition suggest
the following factors for consideration:

a) the examination will

cover events occurring over a long period of time; b) the witness
will be

questioned about numerous or lengthy documents; c) in

multi-party cases, the need for each party to examine the witness;
and

d)

full exploration

witness relies.
to

2000

of the

theories

upon

which

an

expert

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d) advisory committee's note

amendment.

The

Advisory

Committee

"Preoccupation with timing is to be avoided."

goes
Id.

on

to

note:

In this case, even though a major claim for lost profits has

been struck by the Court, Plaintiff is still pursuing several
different claims of recovery.

Plaintiff has proffered one expert

to calculate and opine about the damages relative to each claim
against Defendants, and the damage calculations for each Defendant
are separate and distinct.
Electrolux
different

are

represented

theories

of

Moreover, Defendants Husqvarna and
by

defense

separate
in

the

counsel and
case.

To

be

may

pursue

sure,

had

Plaintiff proffered separate expert reports from different experts
for each Defendant, Defendants Husqvarna and Electrolux would be
entitled to depose its respective expert witness for one day, 7
hours.

Here, though. Plaintiff's use of one expert forecloses

each Defendant's opportunity to take a full swing through crossexamination of the principal expert against it.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds and concludes that

several factors weigh in favor of expanding the deposition of Peter
Karutz.

First, the subject matter upon

which Mr. Karutz will

testify covers a business relationship that spanned at least 8
years.

Second, while Mr. Karutz may not necessarily be questioned

about numerous or lengthy documents, surely his calculations and
the bases therefor will be rather detailed and intricate.

Third,

while there is some overlap in the areas of inquiry, there are two
Defendants against whom Mr. Karutz has offered opinions, each of
whom will require its own independent inquiry.

And finally, the

Court is mindful that Mr. Karutz is an expert witness upon whose

testimony

Plaintiff's

entire

damages

claim

rests.

For

these

reasons, the Court will afford each Defendant an opportunity to
examine Mr. Karutz beyond the time afforded by Rule 30(b) for a
single witness.
Upon the foregoing, and for good cause shown, namely to afford
Defendants Husqvarna and Electrolux a fair opportunity to examine
the deponent. Defendants' motion to extend the deposition of Peter
Karutz (doc. no. 1233) is GRANTED IN PART.

More specifically, Mr.

Karutz shall submit to deposition for a period of 5 hours for
cross-examination by Electrolux and, on a separate day, another

period

of 5 hours for

allotted

for

Moreover,
Defendant.
avoid

one

breaks

cross-examination

shall

Defendant

not

may

be

not

by

counted

yield

Husqvarna.
against

its

time

Times

this

time.

the

other

to

Defendants Husqvarna and Electrolux shall endeavor to

duplicative

questioning.

The

dates

and

times

of

these

depositions are left to the parties to arrange.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

ay of August,

2019.

J. RAN-DAI^ALL, QfHiEF JUDGE

UNITED/STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA