Williams v. C&E Boat Rentals LLC et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 71 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. (NEF - J. Lemelle)(car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 09-5464

C&E BOAT RENTALS, LLC ET AL.

SECTION “B” (2)

ORDER ON MOTION
APPEARANCES: None (on the briefs)
MOTION:

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition of Dr. James Dahlgren,
Record Doc. No. 71

O R D E R E D:
XXX : GRANTED. The deposition of Dr. Dahlgren is hereby QUASHED. As the record
now stands, the deposition of Dr. Dahlgren is unnecessary (since the district judge has
ruled that his testimony will not be permitted at trial, Record Doc. No. 63), untimely
(since it has been noticed well past the deadline for taking depositions and on the eve of
trial, with no showing of “good cause” to extend the deadline, Record Doc. Nos. 17 and
47), and unreasonably cumulative and duplicative in light of Dr. Dahlgren’s prior
deposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), having been noticed without first obtaining
leave of court in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). Thus, all three reasons
offered by defendant in support of this motion are well-founded on the current record, and
the deposition is hereby prohibited.
The basic thrust of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion and his argument that this
untimely re-deposition should be permitted is that Judge Lemelle erred in excluding Dr.
Dahlgren’s deposition because “this Court’s exclusion of Dr. Dahlgren as a witness was
based on the misconception that Dr. Dahlgren’s entire opinion of toxic causation was
based on the presence of 2-butoxy ethanol.” Record Doc. No. 77 at p. 2. I note that
plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Lemelle’s ruling excluding Dr.
Dahlgren as a witness. Record Doc. No. 66. At this late date, however, with trial set to
commence in two weeks, Record Doc. No. 62, I must deal with the record as it is, not as
it might possibly some day be. At this writing, Dr. Dahlgren will not be testifying at trial.

Thus, considering the Rule 16 factors concerning the extension of court deadlines, I must
find plaintiff’s explanation for the untimely deposition notice unpersuasive, Dr.
Dahlgren’s testimony unimportant, and extreme prejudice to defendant if the deposition
of a person who will not be a witness at trial were to be permitted at this late date. Until
such time – if ever – that plaintiff succeeds in convincing the presiding district judge that
an error was made in his previous ruling excluding Dr. Dahlgren as a witness, there
appears to be no prospect – or need – for a trial continuance and certainly no basis for Dr.
Dahlgren’s eve of trial re-deposition.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this

25th

day of April, 2011.

JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CLERK TO NOTIFY:
HON. IVAN L.R. LEMELLE

2