Searcy v. Esurance Insurance Company

Filing 63

ORDER Granting Defendant's 59 Emergency Motion for Leave to Notice Second Deposition of Plaintiff. The hearing on the 59 motion scheduled for 03/14/2016 at 11:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe has been Vacated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 03/08/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 ROSALIND SEARCY, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:15-cv-00047-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 59) 16 Pending before the Court is a motion for leave for a second deposition of Plaintiff, filed on an 17 emergency basis. Docket No. 59. The Court ordered a shortened briefing schedule. Docket No. 60. 18 Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 61, 62. The Court finds 19 the motion properly decided without a hearing, see Local Rule 78-2, and hereby VACATES the hearing 20 set for March 14, 2016. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is hereby GRANTED. 21 Pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), a party must obtain leave of court before deposing a person that 22 has already given a deposition in the case. “The propriety of deposing someone a second time addresses 23 the discretion of the court. The court will generally not require a deponent to appear for a second 24 deposition absent some showing of a need or good reason for doing so.” Cuthbertson v. Excel Indus., 25 Inc., 179 F.R.D. 599, 604 (D. Kan. 1998). Good cause for a second deposition may exist when, inter 26 alia, new claims or defenses have been added, new parties have been added, or new documents have 27 been produced. See, e.g., Kress v. Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2011 WL 5241852, *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28 1, 2011). 1 Defendant argues that sufficient justification exists for a second deposition of Plaintiff because 2 she filed an amended complaint after her first deposition that included substantially more factual 3 allegations than were included previously. See, e.g., Docket No. 59 at 3. Plaintiff responds that 4 Defendant was aware of all of these factual issues because they were all discernible from documents in 5 Defendant’s possession. Docket No. 61 at 2. Defendant has the better argument. Plaintiff’s amended 6 complaint is substantially more detailed than her initial complaint, and the addition of these new 7 allegations into the operative pleading is sufficient cause in this case to allow a second deposition of 8 Plaintiff. 9 10 Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion for leave for a second deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: March 8, 2016 13 14 ______________________________________ ___________________________ _ _ _ Nancy J. Koppe cy J. Koppe y ppe pp pp United States Magistrate Judge Magistrate e ed i t 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?