Marland et al v. Asplundh Tree Expert
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 43 Motion to Take Second Deposition of Minor Plaintiff J.S.M. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 9/1/2016. (eat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT K. MARLAND and JENNIFER D.
MARLAND, as conservators for the minor
child, J.S.M.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., a
Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO.’S
MOTION TO TAKE SECOND
DEPOSITION OF MINOR PLAINTIFF
J.S.M.
Case No. 1:14-cv-40-TS-EJF
District Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse
The Court has reviewed Defendant Asplundh Tree Expert Co.’s Motion to Take Second
Deposition of Minor Plaintiff J.S.M. (ECF No. 43), the Opposition, and the oral argument. The
Court finds good cause does not exist for the second deposition of J.S.M. within six weeks of trial.
The accident occurred when J.S.M. was two years old; Asplundh deposed him on February 19,
2015 when he was eight years old; trial will not commence until J.S.M. is ten years old.
Asplundh seeks to take the deposition to assess the witness closer to trial given the changes that
occur in a child between eight and ten years old and to see if his testimony has changed.
The Court has considered the requirements of Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) and finds
the discovery request unreasonably cumulative and duplicative given the circumstances of this
case. No treatment or procedures have occurred since the deposition or will occur prior to trial.
This fact distinguishes this case from Saleh v. Am. S.S. Co., No. 09-cv-14562, 2011 WL
2214134, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 7, 2011) and Clark v. Penn Square Mall Ltd. P’ship, No. CIV10-29-C, 2013 WL 139778 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 10, 2013). Moreover, the Court has concerns that
deposition of a child of J.S.M’s age that close to trial will cause more detriment to the child’s
willingness to testify at trial than it will benefit Asplundh in obtaining additional evidence. The
Court finds that J.S.M.’s duty to update discovery under Rule 26(e) will adequately protect
Asplundh from changes in testimony.
The Court ORDERS J.S.M.’s counsel to go over all of J.S.M’s deposition testimony with
J.S.M. six to eight weeks prior to trial and report any changes in testimony to Asplundh six
weeks prior to trial. Furthermore, the District Court will allow cross-examination of J.S.M. by
Asplundh to occur the day following his testimony on direct. This time separation between
direct and cross-examination will allow Asplundh time to modify its cross-examination to
account for any changes in maturity and demeanor since J.S.M.’s first deposition.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Asplundh’s Motion.
DATED this 1st day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Evelyn J. Furse
United States Magistrate Judge
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?