Baker v. PPL Corporation
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendants Motion to Exceed Seven (7) Hours of Deposition Time, (Doc. 50), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: The Defendant is granted leave to conduct a deposition of the Plaintiff of a duration of no more than 14 hours. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on May 12, 2011. (kjn )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DOUGLAS BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PPL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-428
(Judge Conner)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
Statement of Facts and of the Case
This is an employment discrimination action brought by Douglas Baker against
his employer, PPL Corporation. According to the Plaintiff’s complaint, Baker was an
electrician and plant equipment operator who has been employed by PPL, an energy
company headquartered in Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) In 1999, and again in 2002, Baker
suffered back injuries, injuries which he claims left him partially disabled. (Id. ¶¶ 2022.) As a result of these back injuries Baker was forbidden by his physician from
wearing steel-toed shoes, and working while standing on hard surfaces. (Id. ¶ 23.)
When Baker returned to work, he allegedly sought reasonable accommodations
from PPL recognizing these disabilities. (Id.) According to the Plaintiff, PPL
responded to this request by discriminating against him, and then retaliating against
1
him for seeking such accommodations in a variety of fashions. Baker’s complaint
alleges that these acts of discrimination and retaliation spanned many years and
included denial of overtime opportunities, and reassignment to the menial task of
doing laundry. (Id. ¶¶24-27.) Baker also claims that, after he made his reasonable
accommodation request, he was informed that he would never be given overtime by
his employer. (Id. ¶ 28.) Baker further contends that he has been denied consideration
for other jobs, even though he is the most qualified candidate for those jobs. (Id.
¶¶29-35.)
Baker’s complaint alleges that these acts by his employer, PPL, violate both the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (hereafter “ADA”), and
the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 951 et seq. With respect
to his claims under the ADA, Baker brings two separate causes of action, claiming
that PPL’s actions both constituted: (1) discrimination prohibited under federal law,
and (2) acts of retaliation against the Plaintiff because of his assertion of rights
guaranteed to him by law. As remedies for these alleged acts of employment
discrimination and retaliation, Baker seeks wide-ranging injunctive relief, along with
compensatory and punitive damages.
This case now comes before us on a dispute regarding the duration of a
proposed deposition of the Plaintiff. PPL has filed a motion seeking leave of court to
2
conduct a deposition of greater than 7 hours in duration. (Doc. 50.) In support of this
request, PPL cites the allegations made by Baker in his complaint, and the detailed
and voluminous nature of Baker’s proof in support of these allegations, as “good
cause” justifying a deposition in excess of the 7 hour duration typically authorized
under the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, PPL alleges that Baker has
been employed by PPL for approximately 28 years. Over these three decades Baker
has amassed an extensive, and voluminously documented work and medical history,
which includes several thousand pages of documents produced by Baker. (Id.)
Among these voluminous materials, Baker has provided several hundred pages of a
journal, which describe his life and experiences at PPL on an almost daily basis. In
addition to the voluminous factual discovery obtained directly from the Plaintiff, PPL
has also obtained, via subpoena, detailed medical records from 8 separate care-givers
who have treated Mr. Baker for various physical and psychological ailments, and
which contain information relevant to the legal and medical issues in this case. Thus,
in PPL’s view the Baker’s allegations are factually quite complex.
Beyond the factual complexity of the case, PPL alleges that the Plaintiff’s
approach to the legal issues in this litigation–which entails allegations that, since at
least 2003, PPL has failed to accommodate his alleged disability and subjected him
to discrimination on an almost daily basis–compels a lengthy deposition of the
3
Plaintiff. For example, with regard to his medical treatment records, Baker has
alleged that he suffers from physical impairments which substantially limit him in
major life activities. Accordingly, PPL asserts that it will be necessary in any
deposition to review Baker’s extensive medical history and treatment records in
detail, to ascertain the effect of these alleged impairments on his life activities. In
addition, with respect to his claimed emotional injuries, Baker alleges that he has
suffered significant emotional distress in connection with his experiences at PPL.
These allegations, in PPL’s view, also compel a detailed review of Baker’s psychotherapeutic treatment records and history. Given the legal and factual complexity of
this matter, PPL asserts that a deposition of Baker will entail more than 7 hours of
testimony and states that: “PPL reasonably anticipates that Mr. Baker’s deposition
will take, at a minimum, two (2) full days, or fourteen (14) hours, to complete. PPL
does not anticipate, however, that Mr. Baker’s deposition will exceed three (3) days,
or twenty-one (21) hours.” (Id., n.1, p.2.)
Baker opposes this request. (Doc. 51.) Baker’s opposition seems to be
grounded, in part, on precisely the same factual considerations which inspire PPL to
make this request. Citing Baker’s extensive medical and psychiatric history, and his
current physical and psychological fragility, Baker urges the Court to reject this
request and limit the duration of this deposition to no more than 7 hours.
4
For the reasons set forth below, PPL’s motion will be granted, in part, and
denied, in part, and the Court will authorize a deposition of the Plaintiff of no more
than 14 hours in duration.
II.
Discussion
Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the duration of
discovery depositions, and provides as follows:
(d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit.
(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The 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.
Fed .R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1).
Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in turn, provides that: “By
order, the court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of depositions and
interrogatories or on the length of depositions under Rule 30.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2).
Issues relating to the scope of discovery permitted under the rules rest in the
sound discretion of the Court. Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90
(3d Cir. 1987). A court’s decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be
disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Marroquin-Manriquez v.
5
I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983). This far-reaching discretion extends to
rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on requests to alter the duration of
depositions. In this regard:
District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad
discretion in resolving discovery disputes. See Farmers & Merchs. Nat'l
Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572, 585
(D.N.J.1997). When a magistrate judge's decision involves a
discretionary matter such as the need for extended time to conduct a
deposition, “courts in this district have determined that the clearly
erroneous standard implicitly becomes an abuse of discretion standard.”
Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224 F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D.Pa.2004)
(citing Scott Paper Co. v. United States, 943 F.Supp. 501, 502
(E.D.Pa.1996)). Under that standard, a magistrate judge's discovery
ruling “is entitled to great deference and is reversible only for abuse of
discretion.” Kresefky v. Panasonic Commc'ns and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D.
54, 64 (D.N.J.1996); see also Hasbrouck v. BankAmerica Hous. Servs.,
190 F.R.D. 42, 44-45 (N.D.N.Y.1999) (holding that discovery rulings
are reviewed under abuse of discretion standard rather than de novo
standard); EEOC v. Mr. Gold, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 100, 102 (E.D.N.Y.2004)
(holding that a magistrate judge's resolution of discovery disputes
deserves substantial deference and should be reversed only if there is an
abuse of discretion).
Halsey v. Pfeiffer, No. 09-1138, 2010 WL 3735702, *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010).
In this case, the informed exercise of our discretion requires us to acknowledge
two countervailing concerns driven by the Plaintiff’s extensive and prolonged
medical and mental health history. At the outset, this history is plainly relevant to the
Plaintiff’s claims, and is clearly, therefore, a legitimate topic for careful and detailed
6
inquiry by the Defendants, who must be provided an adequate opportunity to defend
the allegations leveled against them by Baker. Indeed, where, as here, a deposition
entails examination of allegations spanning many years, and involves consideration
of thousands of pages of written material, courts have held that the proper exercise
of discretion under Rule 30(d)(1) is to extend the duration of a deposition beyond the
7 hour limit generally prescribed by the rule. In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-1717, 2008 WL 53377979 (D.Del. Dec. 18, 2008)(authorizing
14 and 15 hour depositions in case where testimony spans events covering 8 years,
and entails review of thousands of pages of material). On the other hand, the very
nature of the complex and detailed, physical and emotional history of the Plaintiff
suggests that the Plaintiff has a fragility which must also be recognized, and
respected, in setting a deposition schedule in this case.
Acknowledging and carefully weighing, these countervailing considerations,
we conclude that the correct balance of these competing interests requires an
extension of the deposition duration, albeit an extension that is less than that
envisioned by the Defendants in their motion, which stated that: “Mr. Baker’s
deposition will take, at a minimum, two (2) full days, or fourteen (14) hours, to
complete. PPL does not anticipate, however, that Mr. Baker’s deposition will exceed
three (3) days, or twenty-one (21) hours.” (Id., n.1, p.2.) Rather than setting 14 hours
7
as the minimum duration of the deposition, as proposed by PPL, we will prescribe 14
hours as the maximum extended duration of the deposition. In prescribing this
extended time limit for the deposition we recognize PPL’s need to engage in a
thorough colloquy with Baker regarding his multi-faceted claims and allegations. We
reconcile that need on the part of the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s legitimate
concerns regarding his physical and emotional health. Moreover, by prescribing a
deposition duration of 14 hours, which is in accord with the extended deposition
durations set in the Intel Corp. Microprocessor Anti-trust Litigation, we are confident
that we allow PPL adequate time to fully explore the factual and legal issues that lie
at the heart of this employment discrimination case.
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Exceed
Seven (7) Hours of Deposition Time, (Doc. 50), is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part as follows: The Defendant is granted leave to conduct a deposition of the
Plaintiff of a duration of no more than 14 hours.
So ordered this 12th day of May, 2011.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
8
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?