Payan v. United Parcel Service et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 16 Motion to Extend Time for Taking the Deposition of Charles Payan. Defendants may take Plaintiffs deposition over two consecutive days for seven hours each day (fourteen hours total deposition time). Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 05/26/2015. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

CHARLES PAYAN,

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00400-CW-DBP

v.

District Judge Clark Waddoups

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, and
CHARLES MARTINEZ,

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
This matter was referred to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. 13.)
Plaintiff Charles Payan seeks to recover from Defendants United Parcel Service and Charles
Martinez for alleged misconduct that occurred while Plaintiff was employed by UPS, under
Martinez’s supervision. (Dkt. No. 2.) Defendants bring the present motion to increase the
allowable time for deposing Plaintiff from seven hours over one day to fourteen hours over two
consecutive days (seven hours each day). (Dkt. 16.)
ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that they are entitled to additional time to depose Plaintiff because the
examination will cover events spanning four years and the case includes multiple defendants.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has produced over 800 documents, mostly consisting of his
personal notes. Plaintiffs conclude that the proportionality requirements of Rule 26 are met
because Plaintiff is the only source from which Defendants can obtain the information they seek,

Page 1 of 3

and that any burden to Plaintiff is commensurate with the burden he voluntarily undertook when
he decided to prosecute this case.
Plaintiff argues that no case law supports Defendants’ request to depart from the deposition
limit set forth in the scheduling order. Plaintiff also suggests that Defendants can obtain
information from his employment records. Finally, Plaintiff suggests that Defendants should be
required to exhaust their allotted seven hours before seeking additional deposition time.
As Defendants correctly note, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide support for their
request for additional time. A court must allow additional time for a deposition so long as the
additional time is consistent with the considerations in Rule 26(b)(2) and the time is necessary
for the fair examination of the deponent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). The Advisory Committee
Notes to Rule 30 suggest that courts hearing motions to extend deposition time “might consider a
wide variety of factors,” including but not limited to whether “the examination will cover events
occurring over a long period of time . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, Advisory Committee Notes.
Here, the Court concludes that there is good cause to allow Defendants additional time to
depose Plaintiff. The Court rests its conclusion on the four-year period covered by Plaintiff’s
allegations, and the large quantity of documents produced by Plaintiff, including his notes. It is
understandable that Defendants want clarification of Plaintiff’s notes. The allotted seven hours
appears insufficient to allow for fair examination of Plaintiff given both the four-year span of
events at issue and the quantity of documents Plaintiff produced.
The Court does not agree; however, with Defendants’ suggestion that this deposition
extension is merited because this is a multi-party case. The Advisory Committee Notes state that
the multi-party problem can be ameliorated by designating one attorney to ask questions for all
parties with common interests. Defendants appear to share such an attorney here.

Page 2 of 3

Next, the Court finds that the extension is consistent with the considerations in Rule 26(b)(2).
As Defendants correctly point out, Plaintiff himself is the best, if not only, source of information
regarding his notes. Additionally, Plaintiff himself brought this lawsuit. The Court does not find
he will be overly burdened by attending a two-day deposition.
Further, the distinctions Plaintiff makes between this case and Defendants’ persuasive
authority do not require a different outcome here. The inquiry facing the Court is fact-dependent.
Though the circumstances that justified an extension in those cases do not exactly match this
case, extension here is nonetheless justified by the facts presented in Defendants’ motion.
Finally, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s suggestion that Defendants must exhaust their allotted
seven hours before seeking additional time. Plaintiff offers no support for this claim. Likewise,
Defendants indicate that they must coordinate travel for the deposition and can more easily do so
if the deposition is set for consecutive days.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time for Taking the Deposition of Charles Payan.
(Dkt. 16.)
Defendants may take Plaintiff’s deposition over two consecutive days for seven hours each
day (fourteen hours total deposition time).
Dated this 26th day of May, 2015.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3