Opinion
Case No. 5:07cv169/RS/EMT.
June 15, 2008
ORDER
This cause is before the court on Defendants' "Motion to Depose Recently Disclosed Witness, Vanessa Grigoriadis" (Doc. 74).
The discovery deadline has passed, and Defendants now seek this court's authorization to depose Ms. Grigoriadis beyond the deadline, asserting that she is an essential witness and that Defendants first learned about her when Plaintiff responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (id. at 1). Defendants, however, give no indication when this deposition could be taken (see Doc. 74).
Initially, assuming Defendants indeed first learned of Ms. Grigoriadis's existence and/or relevance to this case when Plaintiff responded to Defendants' summary judgment motion, the court notes that Plaintiff's response to the summary judgment motion was filed on June 30, 2008 (see Doc. 64). Defendants, however, did not file the instant motion until July 14, 2008, two weeks later. Moreover, on July 3, 2008, the undersigned granted an extension of the discovery deadline to July 15, 2008, for the limited purpose of taking specific depositions (see Doc. 67). Thus, Defendants could have easily filed the instant motion earlier, so that Ms. Grigoriadis's deposition, like the others, could have been taken on or before July 15, 2008, and there would have been no need for the discovery deadline to be extended even further. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff does not object to the instant motion and because the overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result, see United States v. Procter Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958), the court will reluctantly grant Defendants' motion.
Ms. Grigoriadis authored an article regarding the Defendants that appeared in the Rolling Stone Magazine (or on Rolling Stone's website) on or about June 6, 2002 (see Doc. 64, Ex. B). The article addresses, in part, Defendants' "recent" activities in Panama City, including activities such as those that are directly relevant to the events in this case (which occurred in March 2002) (id.). The article further reveals that Ms. Grigoriadis observed many of those activities firsthand and personally interviewed Defendant Francis (id.). Thus, it seems implausible that Defendants were unaware of Ms. Grigoriadis's relevance to this case, especially considering that she not only wrote an in-depth article about issues relevant to this case, but also that she flew out of Panama City with Defendant Francis on his corporate jet just after being in Panama City with him in March 2002 (see Doc. 74 at 2). Although Defendants contend Ms. Grigoriadis was in Panama City approximately two weeks before Plaintiff was filmed, she nevertheless should have been known by Defendants to be a potentially important witness who may have knowledge regarding matters relevant to this case, such as the modus operandi of Defendants' cameramen, whether the girls who were filmed were offered or signed consents, whether and how the age or sobriety of the person being filmed was determined, etc.
This extension was necessitated by Defendants' conduct (see Doc. 67).
As the parties are well aware, the District Court has made it clear that dilatory tactics are inappropriate, and that the discovery deadline will not be extended (see, e.g., Doc. 31).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Defendants' "Motion to Depose Recently Disclosed Witness, Vanessa Grigoriadis" (Doc. 74) is GRANTED. Ms. Grigoriadis shall be deposed on or before July 25, 2008.