Settles v. Livengood et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to quash and/or for protective order [Doc. # 59 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to take videotaped depositions [Doc. # 60 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay the reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by defendants in connection with the second deposition of the witnesses. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/4/15. (JAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
BRIAN K. LIVENGOOD, et al.,
No. 4:13-CV-662 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of defendants Brian K.
Livengood and Hogan Transports, Inc., for a motion to quash and/or for protective
order barring plaintiff from re-deposing witnesses.
Also before the court is the
plaintiff’s motion for leave to take second depositions.
Counsel for defendants scheduled the depositions of Dr. Victoria Johnson and
Dr. Philbert Chen, plaintiff’s treating physicians, for February 18, 2015, in Urbana,
Illinois. Prior to that date, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he intended to take the
video depositions of the witnesses, but stated that he wanted to do so on a
different date than the regular deposition. Pl. Ex. 1 (emails dated Feb. 9, 2015).
Defendants’ depositions of the witnesses proceeded as scheduled on February 18th.
On March 19, 2015, plaintiff served notices to take a second deposition of the
witnesses in Urbana, Illinois.
On April 7, 2015, defendant conducted a deposition of witness Marty
Rosmanitz, in Springfield, Missouri. Counsel for plaintiff participated by telephone.
During the deposition, Mr. Rosmanitz stated that he would be on vacation at the
scheduled trial date. Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct a second deposition of Mr.
Rosmanitz to preserve his testimony for trial.
Generally, a party may obtain a deposition simply by serving a notice or
subpoena. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(1). At one time, this was also true even if a party was
seeking to reopen or retake a deposition. Kleppinger v. Texas Dep’t of Transp., 283
F.R.D. 330, 332-33 (S.D. Tex. 2012). Under the 1993 amendments, Rule 30 now
requires that “[a] party must obtain leave of the court, . . . if the parties have not
stipulated to the deposition and . . . the deponent has already been deposed in the
case.” Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). Leave must be granted “to the extent consistent with
Rule 26(b)(2).” Rule 30(a)(2).1
Under Rule 26(b)(2), the court must limit discovery if it is: (1) unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; (2) the person seeking the
discovery has had ample opportunity already to obtain the same information; or (3)
the burden or expense of taking the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Rule
26(b)(2)(C). The purpose of Rule 26(b)(2) is “to minimize redundancy and
encourage attorneys to be sensitive to the comparative costs of different methods
of securing information.” Rule 26 advisory committee’s note, 1983 amendments. In
addition, the rule “seeks to reduce repetitiveness and to oblige lawyers to think
through their discovery activities in advance so that full utilization is made of each
Leave is not required when a deposition is temporarily recessed for convenience of counsel
or the deponent or when it is necessary to gather additional materials before resuming. Rule
30 advisory committee’s note, 1993 amendments. This exception does not apply here.
Typically, a party may conduct a second deposition of a witness if new
information comes to light relating to the subject of that deposition, new parties are
added to the case, new allegations are made in pleadings, or new documents are
produced. Keck v. Union Bank of Switzerland, No. 94CIV.4912(AGS)(JCF), 1997 WL
411931, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997)). Under these circumstances, the second
deposition is limited to the new information. A second deposition may also be
ordered if the examining party was inhibited from conducting a full examination as
a result of obstructive conduct at the first deposition. Id.
None of these circumstances apply in this instance: plaintiff elected not to
pose questions to Drs. Johnson and Chen during their depositions out of concern for
their demeanor and appearance and may not now impose the expense of second
depositions on defendants. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont,
Inc., 254 F.R.D. 227, 236 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (granting protective order where
defendant opted to “conduct depositions seriatim, thereby shifting costs to the
opposing side”). Plaintiff protests that he had only five minutes on February 18th in
which to ask Dr. Johnson questions, but that is the result of his decision not to
secure her presence for a longer period of time on that date.
Plaintiff seeks leave to secure the videotaped trial testimony of Mr.
Rosmanitz. “[T]here is no right to a ‘trial deposition’ separate and apart from the
‘deposition’ rules expressly found in Rules 30 through 32. Parties who make the
tactical decision not to preserve deposition testimony during the discovery phase
take the risk that the testimony will not be presented if the witness is unable or
unwilling to appear at trial.” Smith v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 302 F.R.D.
688, 692 (S.D. Fla. 2014). If Mr. Rosmanitz is unavailable to testify at trial, the
parties may introduce testimony from his April 7th deposition.
Defendants indicate their willingness to participate in second depositions of
these witnesses, but not to bear the expense of doing so. While the court will grant
plaintiff leave to take second depositions of Dr. Chen, Dr. Robinson, and Marty
Rosmanitz, plaintiff will be required to pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred by the defendants in connection with attending the depositions.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to quash and/or for
protective order [Doc. #59] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to take
videotaped depositions [Doc. #60] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay the reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs incurred by defendants in connection with the second deposition of
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of May, 2015.
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?