Osborne et al v. Billings Clinic et al
Filing
45
OPINION and ORDER denying 34 Motion for Court's Order Permitting More than Ten Depositions and Setting Depositions of Billings Clinic Agents and Employees. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 1/12/2015. (EMH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
JAN l 2 ZD15
DALE OSBORNE, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Sarah
Osborne,
CV 14-126-BLG-SPW
Plaintiff,
Cler.k, US District Court
District Of ~.1ontana
Billings
OPINION and ORDER
vs.
BILLINGS CLINIC, and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
BILLINGS CLINIC,
Cross-Claimant,
Vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Cross-Defendant.
I.
Introduction
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Dale Osborne's Motion for
Court's Order Permitting More than Ten Depositions and Setting Depositions of
Billings Clinic Agents and Employees (Doc. 34). Osborne seeks permission to
1
expand the number of allowed depositions beyond the limit often imposed by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 30. He contends that this enlargement is necessary to depose "Billings
Clinic Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s) and witnesses who were involved in the care and
treatment of Sarah ... and others who cared for her or have knowledge of facts
relating to her care ... [and] likely additional depositions of witnesses with
knowledge." (Doc. 35 at 2). Osborne also moves the Court to schedule fifteen
depositions. (Doc. 35 at 10). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies this
motion.
II.
Discussion
This matter arises out of Sarah Osborne's death after being admitted to
Billings Clinic in July 2012. (Doc. 9 at 2-4). Osborne filed this tort action in state
court against Billings Clinic. (Doc. 9). Billings Clinic filed a Third-Party
Complaint in August 2014 against Riverstone Health Clinic and its doctors
("Riverstone") who participated in Sarah Osborne's care. (Doc. 10). Riverstone
removed the case to this Court. (Doc. 1). The Preliminary Pretrial Conference
took place on December 4, 2014 and this Court issued its Scheduling Order the
next day. (Doc. 33). Osborne filed the instant motion fourteen days later. (Doc.
34). Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the deadline for parties to complete
discovery is October 4, 2015. (Doc. 33 at 2). No depositions have taken place.
(Doc. 35 at 3-7).
2
As a preliminary matter, Osborne argues that he "repeatedly conferred,
pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Local District Rules" about the need for depositions,
(Doc. 34 at 2). Billings Clinic "does not agree that counsel for Plaintiff 'has
repeatedly conferred, pursuant to Rule 7.1' because, Billings Clinic argues,
Osborne "never specifically conferred regarding the setting of the depositions or
the need for more than ten depositions." (Doc. 37 at 8).
Local Rule 7.1 governs motions. The only applicable requirement therein
that could possibly apply is D. Mont. L. R. 7.l(c)(l), which is the requirement that
the moving party note in the motion whether the motion is opposed. This
requirement has been obviously satisfied, and then some. Compliance with Local
Rule 26.3(c)(l), on the other hand, is in question. Local Rule 26.3(c)(l)
specifically states:
"The Court will deny any discovery motion unless the parties have conferred
concerning all disputed issues before the motion is filed. The mere sending
of a written, electronic, or voice-mail communication does not satisfy this
requirement. Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only through direct
dialogue and discussion in a face-to-face meeting, in a telephone
conversation, or in detailed, comprehensive correspondence."
The filings before this Court confirm that the parties failed to satisfy this
requirement altogether. After reviewing the extensive correspondence submitted
with respect to this motion, the Court is not convinced that Billings Clinic or the
United States ever raised an objection to Osborne taking over ten depositions.
Although Billings Clinic voiced concern about "unlimited depositions," it
3
suggested the parties could "reach an agreement to go beyond th[e] limit." (Doc.
35-15). Nevertheless, this motion was filed two days later, apparently without any
more discussion between the parties. Defendants' responses to this motion
confirmed there is no issue with respect to Osborne exceeding the ten-deposition
limit. (See Doc. 37 at 5 stating "Billings Clinic does not object to Plaintiff taking
more than 10 depositions in this case[.]"; see also Doc. 36 at 3 stating: "the
plaintiff should certainly be allowed to take the depositions which are necessary ..
. regardless of whether this results in taking more than 10 depositions."). The plain
language of the rule states that sending demand after demand is insufficient to
satisfy Rule 26.3( c)(1) because demands are not dialogue. Had the parties engaged
in a dialogue, this motion would have likely not been filed.
The parties' arguments about Rule 7.1 rather than Rule 26.3(c)(l)
underscores an issue this Court would like to address, very early as it turns out, in
this case. That is, precise compliance with, and attention to, the rules - local,
procedural, civil and professional. The Court expects both as to all. In this case,
the pending request is procedurally deficient, because there is no evidence that any
direct dialogue about exceeding the ten-deposition limit or the scheduling of
depositions occurred. The motion is substantively deficient as well.
A party may take up to ten depositions without obtaining leave of the court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A). The party seeking leave to take more than ten
4
depositions will be granted such leave ifthe request is consistent with Rule
26(b )(2). Under Rule 26(b )(2) the Court will consider whether:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or
is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by
discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit, taking in to account the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at
stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in
resolving the issues.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). Rule 30(a)(2)(A) contemplates that a party has already
taken ten depositions before filing a motion seeking leave of court for more than
ten depositions. To that end, courts will generally not grant leave to expand the
number of depositions until the moving party has exhausted the ten depositions
permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A). Then, a party seeking to exceed the
ten deposition limit must make a particularized showing of why the extra
depositions are necessary. Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 271 (8th Cir.1996); Archer
Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc. ofMinn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586
(D.Minn.1999)(a party should appropriately exhaust its current quota of
depositions, in order to make an informed request for an opportunity to depose
more witnesses, before seeking leave to depose a legion of others); Whittingham v.
Amherst College, 163 F.R.D. 170, 171 (D.Mass.1995) (a similar local rule
5
"requires a party to exhaust available discovery before seeking leave for additional
discovery events").
It is, therefore, impossible for Osborne to make the particularized showing
for extra depositions over the ten-deposition limit in this case because, to date, he
has not yet taken even one. 1 Osborne states that the fifteen depositions he seeks to
have the Court set will provide a "workable start[.]" (Doc. 35-1). His request
anticipates that he will need to depose every Billings Clinic employee with
"knowledge" of Sarah's care thus extensive discovery and additional depositions
will be required. (Doc. 35 at 9-10). That may or may not turn out to be the case.
But the Court will not entertain a premature motion to exceed the standard number
of depositions based upon what is speculation and conjecture (and fails to provide
even a number of depositions requested) even if it is reasonably informed and
asserted in good faith as is the case here.
It is important for all parties to understand that prior to taking any deposition
they must always assess whether or not a deposition of that witness is truly
necessary, based in part upon the time and expense that even a single deposition
incurs for all parties involved. Parties must also take into account the standard ten
deposition limit in making that assessment. Only after that process is finished will
1
This Court acknowledges that this is not for Osborne's lack of trying. Although discovery has technically just
begun in this federal action, it does not exist, and the Court does not perceive it, in a vacuum. Should any party
attempt to stonewall or delay discovery proceedings in violation of the rules, they should expect to face sanctions
from this Court.
6
the parties truly appreciate whether additional discovery, as contemplated in
Osborne's request, will be absolutely necessary to justify a motion for leave under
Rule 30(a)(2)(A). That process has clearly not been exhausted in this case.
That said, Osborne's motion permitting more than ten depositions is denied
but without prejudice to future renewal because Osborne may be able to show at a
later date, but prior to the amended discovery cutoff, that he can demonstrate good
cause to take additional depositions beyond the normal limit. If Osborne feels
compelled to make this request again, he will have to justify the necessity of taking
each and every one of the completed depositions that it is permitted under the rule.
Additionally, the Court reminds the parties that they are free to take additional
depositions or depositions beyond the cutoff date but only through their mutual
agreement. Osborne's request that the Court set depositions of Billings Clinic
Agents and Employees is likewise denied. Discovery has been open less than a
month. The parties can schedule their own depositions.
III. Conclusion
For reasons state above, Osborne's Motion (Doc. 34) is DENIED.
yL
DATED thi, 4? cloy ofJ ~rurry 201)'
-r-~~~?~~~L~··
ul~ad~~~·-<---'~
~P.WATTERS
United States District Judge
7
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?