Bry v. City of Frontenac, Missouri et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Testimony at Deposition and for Extension of Time (ECF No. 66 ) is GRANTED in part. Defendants may continue the deposition of Plaintiff at another, mutually agreed upon date and time. Defendants' request for costs associated with the resumption of the deposition is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 9/9/2015. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
)
ROBERT M. BRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FRONTENAC, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-1501 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Testimony at
Deposition and for Extension of Time. (ECF No . 66). Defendants conducted the first deposition
of Plaintiff on August 31 , 2015 .

Defendants seek additional time to complete Plaintiffs

deposition because Plaintiff invoked the "marital privilege" in response to some questions about
what occurred on September 13 , 2013 when Plaintiff was arrested. Defendants maintain that
Plaintiff refused to answer some questions and failed to provide responsive or forthright answers
when responding to defense counsel ' s questions.

In response, Plaintiff states that he consents to appearing and continuing his deposition
but believes that a full seven hours of examination is "unnecessary and excessive." (ECF No.
78).

Plaintiff claims that this additional discovery is " a result solely of [defense counsel ' s]

questioning and (lack of) time management during Mr. Bry' s prior deposition. " Plaintiff also
states that he withdraws his claim that the "anti-spousal testimonial privilege" precludes him
from answering questions regarding the actions of his former wife on September, 13, 2013 .
The Court orders Plaintiff to appear for another deposition. At this time, the Court will
not limit defense counsel to less than seven hours to continue Plaintiffs deposition. It is

undisputed that Plaintiff refused to answer questions regarding what occurred on September 13,
2013 , which are critical to his claims and the issues in this case. Plaintiff refused to answer
questions, in part, based upon a privilege that is inapplicable to this case. Based upon this
obstructionist behavior, the Court will not impose a time limit greater than the limit imposed by
the federal rules. The Court, however, cautions defense counsel not to engage in duplicative or
unnecessary questioning.
The Court further declines to rule on whether Defendants are entitled to the costs for
Plaintiffs second deposition because the transcript of Plaintiffs first deposition is not yet
available. Defendants may file a separate motion, if necessary, once the transcript has been
obtained to allow the Court to review the record.
According! y,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Testimony at

Deposition and for Extension of Time (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED in part. Defendants may
continue the deposition of Plaintiff at another, mutually agreed upon date and time. Defendants'
request for costs associated with the resumption of the deposition is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated this

9th

day of September, 2015.

.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-