Johnson v. The Capital Offset Company, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting, subject to the conditions specified in this order 60 Motion to Continue the Deposition of Susan Cox. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Alford Johnson
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-459-JD

The Capital Offset
Company, Inc., et al.
v.
Susan Cox
O R D E R
Alford Johnson sued The Capital Offset Company, Inc.
(“Capital Offset”), Acme Bookbinding Company, Inc. (“Acme”), and
two individuals, asserting various claims arising out of the
printing and binding of Johnson’s book.
third-party claims against Susan Cox.

Capital Offset brought
Acme and Capital Offset

deposed Cox, and Capital Offset moves for leave to continue Cox’s
deposition.

Cox and Johnson object to the motion.

Discussion
On October 12, 2012, Acme and Capital Offset deposed Cox.
Acme and Capital Offset divided the seven hours of time allotted
for the deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(d)(1).

Acme deposed Cox for the first four hours of the

deposition and Capital Offset for the final three hours.

Shortly after reaching the seven hour limit, Cox’s counsel
offered to continue the deposition for an additional hour if
Capital Offset agreed to finish its questioning in that time.
Capital Offset did not agree to conclude its questioning in that
time, and Cox’s counsel terminated the deposition.

Capital

Offset moves for additional time to continue Cox’s deposition.1
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[u]nless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is
limited to 1 day of 7 hours.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1).

Notwithstanding the seven hour limit, Rule 30(d)(1) continues,
“[t]he court must allow additional time consistent with Rule
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.”

Id.

“The party seeking a court order

to extend the examination, or otherwise alter the limitations, is
expected to show good cause to justify such an order.
Civ. P. 30 advisory committee note (2000).

1

Fed. R.

“‘The determination

Although Capital Offset’s counsel stated at Cox’s
deposition that she may need an additional two-and-a-half to
three hours to complete the deposition, Capital Offset did not
specify in its motion the amount of additional time it was
requesting. In its reply to Cox’s objection, which pointed out
that the motion sought an unspecified amount of time to continue
the deposition, Capital Offset clarified that it was requesting
two-and-a-half to three hours of additional deposition time, as
its counsel had requested during Cox’s deposition.
2

of whether good cause exists is fact specific.’”

Saeed v. County

of Nassau, 2011 WL 6945755, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011)
(quoting Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 2008 WL 2224288, at *8
(S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008)).
Capital Offset does not contend that Cox or her counsel
unnecessarily impeded or delayed the deposition.

Rather, it

argues that it was not able to question Cox fully regarding
various issues in the case arising from approximately 1500 pages
of documents produced by Cox and the books and press sheets
produced by Johnson, which were not fully covered in Acme’s
questioning.

It argues, therefore, that it needs additional time

“to fairly examine this deponent regarding all of the matters in
the case.”
Neither Cox nor Johnson disputes that Capital Offset may
have additional questions for Cox which it did not cover in the
deposition.2

Rather, they argue that the court should not extend

Cox’s deposition because Cox was cooperative during the
deposition, because all other depositions in the case were

2

Johnson notes that the “topic that Capital Offset seeks to
further depose Ms. Cox on seems redundant.” Johnson, however,
points only to questions regarding specific books shown to
various deponents. Capital Offset’s motion lists other areas of
questioning, including Cox’s correspondence concerning Johnson’s
book and press sheets. Johnson does not contend that questioning
on those matters would be redundant or unnecessary.
3

completed within seven hours, because Capital Offset spent time
questioning Cox on issues of little relevance to the claims in
dispute, and because Capital Offset deposed Cox on topics covered
by Acme.
Capital Offset has asserted four claims against Cox as a
third-party defendant.

The court has reviewed the transcript of

Cox’s deposition and does not find that Capital Offset spent
significant time on questions of little relevance or on redundant
questions.

Capital Offset has shown good cause to extend Cox’s

deposition by an additional three hours.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30

advisory committee note (2000) (“[C]ourts asked to consider an
extension . . . might consider a variety of factors . . . . In
multi-party cases, the need for each party to examine the witness
may warrant additional time.”).
The court recognizes the burden that the extended deposition
places on Cox, particularly in light of Cox’s cooperation and her
counsel’s offer to remain at the original deposition for an
additional hour.

Therefore, Capital Offset shall be responsible

for the cost of the extended deposition, including but not
limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and travel expenses.

4

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Capital Offset’s motion for leave
to continue the deposition of Susan Cox (document no. 60) is
granted, subject to the conditions specified in this order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 15, 2013
cc:

Jennifer Turco Beaudet, Esquire
Lawrence F. Boyle, Esquire
Elsabeth D. Foster, Esquire
Thomas J. Pappas, Esquire
Arnold Rosenblatt, Esquire
Mark W. Shaughnessy, Esquire
William N. Smart, Esquire

5