Stevens v. Brigham Young University - Idaho et al
Filing
236
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that plaintiff is entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the Topic #10 contained in the amended deposition notice. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
LORI STEVENS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY –
IDAHO dba BYU-Idaho, a Utah corporation
and SUSAN STOKES, personal
representative of the Estate of Stephan
Stokes,
Case No. 4:16-CV-530-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Defendants.
The Court has before it a discovery dispute between the parties. Plaintiff Stevens
wants to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant BYU-I to inquire into benefits a
crucial witness – Danielle Spencer – may have received from the University. BYU-I
objects on the grounds that (1) the amended deposition notice was untimely as it was sent
after discovery had closed, and (2) counsel was able to question the witness BYU-I
would designate under Rule 30(b)(6) at the evidentiary hearing held on November 12,
2019. The parties filed briefs (docket nos. 164 & 165) and held a mediation session with
the Court’s Law Clerk.
The Court made clear in its prior decision (docket no. 232) that at trial, Stevens
could conduct a full inquiry into the benefits Spencer may have received in exchange for
her testimony: (1) legal fees: (2) grades; (3) deferments; and (4) free counseling. 1 So the
inquiry is relevant and discoverable. While the amended deposition notice was late, the
Court finds persuasive plaintiff’s argument that she was not aware of crucial evidence
until the end of the deadline and diligently filed the amended notice quickly thereafter.
Moreover, the Court finds that it constrained somewhat the questioning at the November
12, 2019 hearing and so that inquiry cannot be substituted for a full Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
on the Topic #10 contained in the amended deposition notice.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that plaintiff is entitled to a
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the Topic #10 contained in the amended deposition notice.
DATED: December 19, 2019
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
United States District Judge
1
It appears that plaintiff may not pursue free counseling, but that is her choice – the Court has
not taken off the table any of the four items listed above as grounds for inquiry during trial, including
grades. Even though Wray testified credibly, plaintiff is still entitled to present his testimony at trial on
grades because the jury, not the Court, is the ultimate judge of credibility. Likewise, plaintiff is entitled to
inquire into the meetings between Woodard and Spencer.
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?