Wagafe et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 428

ORDER granting Defendants' 414 Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depositions. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11
12
13
14

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al.,

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, et al.,

15
Defendants.

16
17

I.

18
19

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Take

20

Additional Depositions. Dkt. # 414. Plaintiffs oppose this motion. Dkt. # 417. For the

21

reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
II.

22
23

BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiffs disclosed to Defendants six notice

24

responders who agreed to serve as witnesses in this case. Dkt. # 417 at 6. On September

25

17, 2020, Defendants filed this motion seeking to expand the number of depositions

26

permitted so they may depose the six potential witnesses. Dkt. # 414 at 1. Plaintiffs

27

oppose the addition of depositions, arguing that such a request is untimely, unduly

28

ORDER – 1

1

prejudicial, and demonstrates bad faith. Dkt. # 417 at 6-13.

2
3
III.

4
5

LEGAL STANDARD

A party must obtain leave of the court if it seeks to take more than the presumptive

6

limit of ten depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A). While parties are expected to

7

determine the number of depositions they need at the time of a scheduling conference, a

8

need for additional depositions beyond those contemplated may arise as discovery

9

progresses. Thykkuttathil v. Keese, 294 F.R.D. 601, 602 (W.D. Wash. 2013). In

10

determining whether to expand the number of allowable depositions, a court

11

must consider whether:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by
discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account
the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the
proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). A party requesting additional depositions
beyond the presumptive limit of ten must make a “particularized showing of the need for
additional depositions.” Id. at 603 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Before
making a request for additional depositions, “[p]arties should ordinarily exhaust their
allowed number of depositions.” Id.

23
24
25
26

IV.

Here, Defendants claim they meet all the requirements for expanding the
number of depositions. Dkt. # 414 at 4. Defendants note that they have already
exhausted their ten depositions. Id. at 6. They claim that Plaintiffs only recently

27
28

DISCUSSION

ORDER – 2

1

disclosed the six potential witnesses and that Defendants should have the opportunity to

2

depose them to ensure that they are not ambushed at trial. Id. at 4. They argue that

3

because each newly disclosed witness has a unique “story,” the discovery they seek is not

4

unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or obtainable from another source. Id. Defendants

5

assert that “they will be unduly prejudiced if they are arbitrarily precluded from obtaining

6

deposition testimony” of these witnesses “particularly given how important Plaintiffs

7

have claimed their testimony is to this case.” Id. at 7. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs

8

moved for Court permission to interview these witnesses on January 9, 2020, asserting

9

that their stories go “directly to the core of Plaintiffs’ case” and that their “experiences

10

are material to this case.” Dkt. # 309 at 11. Denying Defendants the opportunity to

11

depose the witnesses would unduly prejudice them.

12

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion should be denied as untimely. Plaintiffs

13

contend that Defendants have known that notice responders may testify since November

14

2019 and that they should have sought to expand the number of depositions then. Dkt #

15

417 at 1-2. The deadline to file discovery-related motions was January 2, 2020. Id. at 2.

16

While parties agreed to extend some of the deadlines, Defendants did not seek to extend

17

this one, and, Plaintiffs argue, they should not be allowed to further expand discovery at

18

this point. Id. However, Plaintiffs did not disclose the six notice responders who agreed

19

to serve as witnesses until September 14, 2020. Dkt. # 417 at 6. Defendants filed a

20

motion seeking leave to depose them only three days later. Dkt. # 414. The Court does

21

not find Defendants motion here to be untimely.
Plaintiffs’ additional arguments of bad faith and undue prejudice do not outweigh

22
23

the undue prejudice that Defendants will likely suffer if they are precluded from deposing

24

these witnesses. The burden of discovery here does not outweigh the benefits. Indeed,

25

the importance of the issues raised in the litigation and the importance of discovery in

26

resolving these issues lean in favor of granting additional depositions.

27

///

28

ORDER – 3

V.

1
2
3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to take
additional depositions.

4
5

DATED this 19th day of October, 2020.

6

A

7
8

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 4