Vision Security et al v. Xcentric Ventures

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 79 Motion to Compel Deposition of Mr. Magedson. The parties are ORDERED to work together to find a convenient time to depose Mr. Magedson in Arizona. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 7/11/2016. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
VISION SECURITY, LLC. et al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-926 JNP

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC,

District Judge Jill Parrish

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Before the Court are Plaintiffs, Vision Security, LLC and Rob Harris’ Motion to Compel
the Deposition of Ed Magedson. 1 Plaintiffs filed their motion on May 17, 2016, and as of the
date of this decision there has been no opposition filed. For the reasons set forth below the Court
GRANTS the motion.
Defendant Xcentric Ventures, LLC served its initial disclosures on Plaintiffs in December
2014. 2 In these disclosures Edward Magedson was listed as a person likely to have discoverable
information and as a possible witness. Mr. Magedson “is expected to testify about Xcentric’s
business practices, and any communications with Vision Security and Mr. Rees.” 3 Mr.
Magedson is the founder of Xcentric and “the sole employee named in Xcentric’s Initial
Disclosures.” 4 Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel requesting to depose Mr.
Magedson. The request was denied because according to Defendant’s counsel Mr. Magedson

1

Docket no. 79.

2

Initial disclosures, docket no. 79-1.

3

Id. at p. 2.

4

Mtn. p. 2.

“has no unique personal knowledge of the matter in dispute.” 5 Plaintiffs argue this contradicts
Defendant’s own discovery responses. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument.
Parties to a lawsuit are entitled to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 6 And a party may obtain this information via
oral depositions. 7 Based on the record before the Court, Mr. Magedson fits within these rules of
discovery. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel his deposition will therefore be granted.
In addition Local Rule 7-1(d) provides that if a party fails to respond timely to a motion
the Court may grant the motion without further notice. 8 Plaintiffs filed their motion on May 17,
2016, and the time to respond has passed. This is an independent basis to grant the motion.
ORDER
It is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Mr.
Magedson is GRANTED. The parties are ORDERED to work together to find a convenient time
to depose Mr. Magedson in Arizona.

DATED this 11 July 2016.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

5

Mtn. p. 3 (citing to Ex. 2 attached to the motion).

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

7

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.

8

DUCivR. 7-1(d) (2015).

2