Edwards v. Edwards et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 54 Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery and Defendants' depositions and REOPENING discovery for forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order for the sole purpose of redeposing Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/18/14. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
TERESITA EDWARDS
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 12-3761

:
ALFRED EDWARDS, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending and ready for review in this case is a
motion to reopen discovery filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 54).
Defendants filed an opposition (ECF No. 58), and Plaintiff filed
a reply (ECF No. 59).

For the reasons that follow, the motion

to reopen discovery will be granted in part.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated numerous federal
and state laws by forcing her into involuntary servitude as
Defendants’ housekeeper for approximately ten years.

Plaintiff

represents that at 4:40 p.m. on November 25, 2013 – the last day
of

discovery

responsive
delivery

to

was

–

Defendants

Plaintiff’s
made

after

delivered
May

2013

Plaintiff

a

new

document
submitted

set

of

documents

requests.
a

joint

This
status

report earlier that day representing to the court that discovery
had concluded.
Plaintiff deposed Defendant Gloria Edwards on August 22 and
November 14, 2013, and Defendant Alfred Edwards, Jr. on October

1,

2013.

Defendants

never

notified

documents would be arriving.

Plaintiff

that

these

Plaintiff avers that if she had

been made aware of this additional production, she would not
have affirmed that discovery was complete and may have postponed
Ms. Edwards’s November 14, 2013 deposition.
Of

the

127

pages

produced,

documents as prejudicial.

Plaintiff

points

to

three

First, Defendants produced an email

from Luz Stock, Defendant Gloria Edwards’s sister, to Gloria
dated March 14, 2010.

Ms. Stock recounted that every time she

visited the Edwards, Plaintiff was in good spirits and treated
well.
that

Ms. Stock states that in July 2009, she told Plaintiff
her

sister

(Gloria)

had

told

her

that

in

the

event

something should happen to Defendants while they are on a trip
to Israel, she should ensure that Plaintiff receives $200,000.
(ECF No. 54-6, at 13).

Second, Defendants produced an unsigned,

unsworn affidavit by Ms. Roberta Batac Ben-Naim, a friend of
Defendants

who

hosted

them

in

Israel

(“Ben-Naim

Affidavit”).

Similar to the statements of Ms. Stock, Ms. Ben-Naim observed
only

positive

interactions

between

Plaintiff

and

Defendants.

(Id. at 14-15).

Plaintiff states that Ms. Ben-Naim was not

previously

to

known

her.

Finally,

Defendants

produced

a

document that appears to be a timeline of selected actions of
Plaintiff.
be

“the

(Id. at 2-11).

book”

Gloria

Plaintiff speculates that this could

referred
2

to

in

her

deposition

as

the

document where she records all her trips.

(ECF No. 54-9, at 4,

Trans. 110:2-16).
Plaintiff argues that she has been prejudiced by this late
production

because

Defendants

she

during

did

their

not

have

depositions

the

opportunity

about

the

to

ask

information

contained, or the allegations disclosed, in the documents.

The

information concerns payments made by Defendants to Plaintiff
for services performed, and the Plaintiff’s living conditions,
both

central

issues

in

this

case.

Additionally,

Plaintiff

contends that Defendants are the only ones available who could
authenticate

these

documents

and

speak

to

their

creation.

Consequently, Plaintiff requests that discovery be reopened to
allow her to redepose Defendants for an additional three hours
each.

Plaintiff also requests that the depositions occur at

Defendants’ expense.
Defendants, in opposition, do not explain the last-minute
delivery,

except

to

point

out

that

they

have

consistently

provided responsive documents, in excess of 2,000 pages.

They

focus their argument on whether the three documents Plaintiff
cites justify redeposing Defendants.
Stock,

Defendants

argue

that

Ms.

As to the email from Ms.

Stock

was

identified

as

a

potential witness on June 4, 2013; Plaintiff did not depose Ms.
Stock during discovery; Ms. Stock – not Gloria – is the only
person who can authenticate the email; and that Alfred Edwards
3

already discussed this arrangement in his deposition.
No. 58-2).

(See ECF

As to the Ben-Naim Affidavit, Defendants argue that

it would be futile to depose them about this document, because
they

did

not

conversations

prepare

would

be

it

and

hearsay.

any

testimony

Finally,

in

about

regard

to

the
the

timeline, they only state that Gloria referenced this timeline
in her deposition.
Plaintiff

replies

that

Ms.

Stock’s

email

creates

a

discrepancy with both Defendants’ depositions, because they each
responded that they knew of no documentation indicating that
Plaintiff would receive any money should they die.

With regard

to the Ben-Naim Affidavit, Plaintiff argues that she is entitled
to know who authored the affidavit, whether Defendants had any
influence on the substance, and whether they think there are any
inaccuracies.
Before reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, it is
necessary first to address Defendants’ additional argument that
Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 104.7 concerning
discovery disputes.

Local Rule 104.7 requires counsel to confer

with one another and attempt to resolve their differences before
coming to court.

Additionally, the moving party must file a

certificate

reciting

conference,

and

the

the

date,

names

of

time,
those

and

that

place

of

participated,

the
or

counsel’s attempt to hold such a conference without success; and
4

an itemization of the issues requiring resolution by the court.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not request a discovery
conference,

nor

correspondence

did

Plaintiff

with

Defendants

reopening discovery.
the

parameters

of

point

to

that

any
she

document
believes

in

her

justify

Additionally, Plaintiff did not outline
her

proposal

in

her

correspondence

with

Defendants.
Defendants’
includes,

as

arguments

part

parties’ counsel.

of

her

will

be

motion,

rejected.

Plaintiff

correspondence

between

the

On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel

sent his counterpart a letter via email presenting his view that
the late-produced documents are relevant to the parties’ claims
and defenses and should have been produced in advance of the
depositions.

He requested that Defendants’ consent to reopen

the depositions of Defendants to inquire about these documents
and stated that if Defendants’ counsel does not consent, he
would file a motion seeking the same.
December

4,

2013,

Plaintiff’s

(ECF No. 54-7).

counsel

wrote

an

email

On
to

Defendants’ counsel, requesting a response from Defendants and
offering to discuss by telephone.

Defendants’ counsel responded

the next day and indicated that they will not stipulate to the
depositions

of

Defendants.

(ECF

satisfy Local Rule 104.7.

5

No.

54-8).

These

efforts

The issues of reopening discovery and redeposing Defendants
lie within the discretion of the court.
F.2d 28, 32 (4th Cir. 1988).

Vodrey v. Golden, 864

To reopen discovery, Plaintiff must

satisfy the good cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The primary consideration of the

court in addressing whether “good cause” has been shown under
Rule 16(b) relates to the movant’s diligence.

Montgomery v.

Anne Arundel Cnty., Md., 182 F.App’x 156, 162 (4th Cir. 2006)
(per

curiam).

Lack

of

diligence

and

carelessness

are

“hallmarks of failure to meet the good cause standard.”

the
West

Virginia Housing Dev. Fund v. Ocwen Technology Xchange, Inc.,
200

F.R.D.

inquiry

564,

is

upon

modification.
should

567

end.”

(S.D.W.Va.1995).

(S.D.W.Va.

the

If

that
Marcum

2001).

party
v.

focus

party’s

moving

“[T]he
reasons

for

was

not

Zimmer,

diligent,
163

the

F.R.D.

of

the

seeking
inquiry

250,

254

In terms of redepositions, Rule 30(d) provides

that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours.
additional

time

consistent

with

Rule

The court must allow

26(b)(2)

if

needed

to

fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person,
or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.”
Plaintiff has met these standards in terms of the timeline
and the Ben-Naim Affidavit.

Gloria Edwards, in her deposition,

alluded to “the book” which kept a log of all the trips she
6

took.

Plaintiff’s counsel told Gloria that they had asked for

that document, but she thought she had not given it to her
lawyer.

(ECF No. 54-9, at 4, Trans. 110:2-16).

The Advisory

Committee contemplated this scenario as one reason justifying
extending depositions.

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

note (2000) (“If the examination reveals that documents have
been

requested

but

not

produced,

that

may

examination once production has occurred.”).

justify

further

Plaintiff made her

document requests in May 2013 and there is no indication she was
not diligent in attempting to obtain all relevant documents from
Defendants.

She

contacted

Defendants

two

days

after

the

documents were delivered and filed her motion four days after
learning

that

discovery.

Defendants

would

not

consent

to

reopening

Other courts have reopened discovery and permitted

redepositions under similar circumstances.

See, e.g., Eckhardt

v. Bank of Am., N.A., Civil No. 3:06CV512-H, 2008 WL 1995310, at
*8 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008).

Similarly, Plaintiff will be allowed

to inquire about Ms. Ben-Naim’s affidavit.

Ms. Ben-Naim was not

identified

Defendants

as

a

potential

witness

by

and

her

observations regarding Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s general disposition are relevant to the claims at
issue.

The

prejudicial
discovery

to
for

last-minute
Plaintiff
the

delivery
and

purpose

will

of

of
be

deposing
7

these
remedied

documents
by

Defendants

was

reopening
on

these

matters.
costs

Additionally,

of

these

Defendants

depositions,

shall

the

reasonable

Plaintiff’s

including

bear

reasonable

attorney’s fees.
Ms. Stock, however, was listed as a potential witness by
Defendants and Plaintiff chose not to depose her.

In Alfred

Edwards’s deposition, he testifies that his wife discussed the
arrangement recounted in this email with Ms. Stock.

While he

stated

of

that

he

did

not

have

any

documentation

this

arrangement, he did state that Ms. Stock can testify to it.
(ECF No. 58-2, at 5-6, Trans. 99:5 – 100:19).

Plaintiff could

have deposed Ms. Stock.
Accordingly, it is this 18th day of April, 2014, by the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery and Defendants’

depositions (ECF No. 54) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;
2.

Discovery will be reopened for forty-five (45) days

from the date of this Order for the sole purpose of redeposing
Defendants;
3.

Plaintiff will be permitted to redepose each Defendant

for a maximum of two (2) additional hours;
4.

The depositions will be limited to the timeline and

Ms. Ben-Naim’s affidavit produced by Defendants to Plaintiff on
November

25,

2013

(ECF

No.

54-6,
8

at

2-12,

14-15),

their

contents,

the

subjects

discussed

therein,

and

any

related

topics;
5.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum

Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

9