Summary
stating that "[i]n limitation of liability cases, both tugs and barges are considered vessels."
Summary of this case from In Matter of Mobro Marine, Inc.Opinion
CASE NO. 3:02-CV-471-J-20TEM
March 24, 2003
ORDER
Counsel for the two limitation Plaintiffs and the ten (10) claimants have filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation of Parties to Waive Limit on Number of Depositions (Doc. #45).
Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the parties must obtain leave of court ("without written stipulation of the parties") if a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken. Clearly, the rule contemplates greater than ten depositions may be taken by mutual agreement of the parties. However, Local Rule 3.02(b) of the Middle District of Florida specifies that no more than 10 depositions per side may be taken without order of the Court.
The Advisory Committee notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 indicate the purpose of the requirement to limit the number of depositions was to assure judicial review under the standards set forth in Rule 26(b)(2) and to "emphasize that counsel have a professional obligation to develop a mutual cost-effective plan for discovery in the case." FED.R.CIV.P. 30 advisory committee's note (1993). Arguably, the provision seeks to have the courts enforce a public interest in minimizing the costs of discovery in litigation. Whittingham v. Amherst College, 163 F.R.D. 170, 172 (D. Mass. 1995).
Given the number of parties to this case, the nature of the litigation and the mutual agreement of all parties to exceed the presumptive limit on the number of depositions, the Court finds that the reasons stated for exceeding ten depositions are appropriate and it will GRANT the motion. The motion reserved the right for any party to subsequently move for a protective order should the depositions become excessively duplicative or burdensome. The only reluctance the Court has in granting the motion is that the procedure could be read to switch the burden if a dispute occurs on the eventual number of depositions. Therefore, the parties are advised the Court would consider Rule 26(b) standards should a dispute arise. Given the experience and competence of counsel in the case, the Court does not anticipate such a dispute will occur.
DONE AND ORDERED