Summary
stating that "[a]t best, [the defendant's] motion [for additional depositions] has been brought prematurely as nothing in the record indicates discovery has begun"
Summary of this case from Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Pharmacia CorporationOpinion
CASE NO. 3:02-cv-793-J-21TEM
February 13, 2003
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion and Integrated Memorandum of Law of Defendant, Dawson Land Development Company, Inc. ("Dawson Land"), to Amend the Case Management Report (Doc. #17, Motion to Amend), wherein Defendant Dawson Land seeks the Court's permission to exceed the number of depositions allowed under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) and Rule 31(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3.02(b) of this Court. Defendant Dawson Land avers the instant action is a "complex" case which may necessitate the "need to increase the number of depositions for each party." (Doc. #17 at 4.) Conversely, Plaintiff opposes the instant motion and asserts this action for declaratory judgment of Defendant Dawson Land's rights under the insurance policy in question is limited in scope such that no greater than the allotted ten (10) depositions per side should be required (Doc. #20).
Other courts have generally held that a party seeking to exceed the presumptive number of depositions must make a "particularized showing of why the discovery is necessary." Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Services, Inc. 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999). See also, Barrow v. Greenville Independent School District, 202 F.R.D. 480 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (finding plaintiff failed to justify the need to exceed the limit on number of depositions where magistrate judge concluded plaintiff's assertion of relevance was speculation); Whittingham v. Amherst College, 163 F.R.D. 170 (D. Mass. 1995) (holding Federal Rules require a party to make a specific showing of necessity to take depositions in excess of limit provided).
The Court finds Defendant Dawson Land has not provided adequate reason to require the permitted number of depositions exceed a total of ten per side, as specified under the applicable rules. At best, Defendant Dawson Land's motion has been brought prematurely as nothing in the record indicates discovery had even begun prior to the filing of the instant motion. The Court must, at a minimum, balance the burden or expense of the proposed discovery against the likely benefit and determine if the sought discovery would be cumulative or duplicative. See, FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(2). An assertion that a case is "complex" is insufficient to justify deviation from the presumptive number of depositions. See, e.g., Whittingham, 163 F.R.D at 170. Further, although Defendant identifies two individuals specifically and expresses a needmay arise to depose other individuals identified only by general reference (Doc. #17 at 3-4), the Court is unable to ascertain whether the number of needed depositions will necessarily be greater than ten, or whether the desired depositions would be cumulative or duplicative.
Accordingly, Defendant Dawson Land's motion to exceed deposition limits, as set forth in the Motion to Amend the Case Management Report (Doc. #17), is DENIED. If necessary, the issue may be revisited after Defendant has actually deposed several witnesses and obtained other discovery. An appropriate showing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) must be made before this Court will grant any motion to exceed the the number of depositions permitted under the applicable rules.
DONE AND ORDERED