Rowe v. Heritage Automotive Group, Inc.
Filing
27
DECISION denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration re: 24 Order on Motion to Amend the Discovery Schedule/Order. Signed by Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 7/18/2018. (esb)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
DISTHlCT OF VERMONT
F.
J
2018 JUL 18 PM 4: 03
CLER!(
3Y. ,·----~c._
n :,:· ,-~ \" r~ 1 E'"~ .1 ..;
DONALD ROWE,
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 5:17-cv-38
HERITAGE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.,
D/B/A/ WHITE RIVER TOYOTA,
Defendant.
DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 25)
In this employment discrimination case, Defendant Heritage Automotive Group, Inc.
seeks reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1 ), of the court's June 7, 2018 discovery
order permitting Plaintiff Donald Rowe and Carol Kubler, the plaintiff in another employment
discrimination action against Heritage pending before this court, to conduct joint depositions of
Heritage's current and former employees. Heritage asserts that this decision was based on a
mistake oflaw.
The court exercises broad discretion over the conduct of discovery. In most cases, little
supervision is required because counsel cooperate to share information in a speedy, efficient
process. Contrary to Heritage's claim that the court's action in permitting joint depositions in
related cases was "unprecedented," Doc. 25 at 1, courts are generally encouraged to exercise
their discretion to limit the cost and duration of discovery and avoid duplicative discovery.
Moore's Federal Practice addresses the issue:
In related cases pending before the same judge, it is best to coordinate discovery plans to avoid
conflicts and duplication. If the cases are pending before different judges, the judges should
1
attempt to coordinate the depositions of common witnesses and other common discovery.
Examination regarding subjects of interest only to a particular case may be deferred until the
conclusion of direct and cross-examination on matters of common interest. Parties in related
cases may also stipulate to the use of depositions taken in one particular case.
32 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil§ 11.455 (2018). These methods are not limited to cases
which are formally consolidated, transferred to a single judge, or subject to MDL proceedings.
Judges should encourage techniques that coordinate discovery and avoid duplication ....
Filing or cross-filing deposition notices, interrogatories, and requests for production in related
cases will make the product of discovery usable in all cases and avoid duplicative activity.
32 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil§ 20.14 (2018). While these excerpts appear within the
Manual for Complex Litigation, the principles are applicable in all civil cases. The court has an
obligation to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. An order which results in one deposition rather than two in cases
which share factual and legal elements is a sound exercise of the discretion and responsibility the
civil rules extend to trial judges.
The same lawyers appear in both this case and the Kubler case. The two matters are
pending before the same judge in the same court. The defendant is the same. Both plaintiffs are
former employees of Heritage, and their periods of employment appear to overlap, at least based
on the facts alleged in the complaints. Certainly, the cases share potential witnesses in common.
The claims themselves share common elements; both plaintiffs claim that Heritage discriminated
against them on the basis of age and disability and that Heritage fostered a hostile work
environment.
It would be inefficient to require plaintiff's counsel to depose defendant's employees
twice. Heritage has not demonstrated that joint depositions will "affect a party's substantial
rights" so as to constitute abuse of the court's broad discovery discretion. See Long Island
Lightning Co. v. Barbash, 779 F.2d 793, 795 (2d Cir. 1985). Heritage does not identify a
2
practical obstacle to a common deposition. Obviously the details of each case are different, and
there will be questions which are irrelevant to one case or the other. But a common deposition
does not violate the presumptive rule of sequestration of witnesses at trial. Sequestration
practices do not prevent a party from reading depositions taken in other cases. Similarly, the
plaintiffs' presence at the joint depositions will not affect Heritage's substantial rights.
Finally, the court notes that the request for joint depositions was made by the Plaintiff
and pertains to the plaintiffs' depositions. If the deposition is confusing and the transcript
unusable at trial-and it remains to be seen whether that will indeed be the case-then it is the
plaintiffs who are taking the risk that their depositions may not be useful. It is not easy to
imagine a line of factual questions which raises incurable problems of entanglement and
confusion, but to the extent that there is a risk of confusion, the plaintiffs bear that risk.
The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 25) is DENIED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this Jhday of July, 2018.
~~
Geoffrey W. Crawford, Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
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?