United States District Court, W.D. Washington
ORDER REGARDING PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the following three
1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Three Additional
Depositions Beyond the Presumptive Limit Imposed by FRCP 30
2) Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time for Rebuttal
Expert Disclosures and Completion of Expert Discovery (Dkt.
3) Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Requests and to
Re-Open Plaintiff's Deposition (Dkt. #49).
Court has reviewed these motions and now resolves them as set
22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant employment matter,
alleging that he suffered discrimination and retaliation by
Defendant because of his race/national origin (Middle
Eastern-Iranian), color, accent and ethnicity. Dkt. #1.
Plaintiff alleges that he was an exemplary employee who
worked for Defendant for over 29 years. Id. at
¶ 2. Plaintiff further alleges that toward the end of
2014, he was assigned a new manager from South Carolina, who
almost immediately began discriminating and then retaliating
against him, including but not limited to discriminating in
the terms and conditions of his employment, unlawfully
denying a pay raise, cash award, and promotion, and
intentionally discriminating and retaliating against him with
regard to his performance and competency evaluations, which
directly led to and caused him to be laid off and then
terminated from his employment as part of a Reduction In
Force (“RIF”). Id. Plaintiff seeks
monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and
nonpecuniary damages, compensatory damages, and punitive
damages. Id. at ¶ 3. Defendant has denied
Plaintiff's allegations. Dkt. #4.
the filing of the Complaint and Answer, this matter has
proceeded through the normal course of litigation. Trial is
currently scheduled for January 22, 2018, the discovery
deadline was September 25, 2017, and dispositive motions are
currently due by October 24, 2017. Dkt. #12. The instant
discovery motions are now ripe for review.
Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Depositions
has moved for leave to take three additional depositions
beyond the presumptive limit of 10 depositions imposed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Dkt. #43. These
depositions would include the two rebuttal experts identified
by Defendant, Dr. Gerald Rosen and Mr. Lee Miller, and
Defendant's employee Mr. Jose Amoedo. Plaintiff argues
that these depositions are not unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative of witnesses that have been deposed or are
scheduled to be deposed, and the testimony of these witnesses
cannot be gathered from any other sources.
Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires agreement between the
parties or leave of the court to take more than 10
depositions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A) (“By order, the court may
alter the limits in these rules on the number of depositions
. . . under Rule 30.”). “A party seeking to
exceed the presumptive limit bears the burden of making a
‘particularized showing' of the need for additional
depositions.” Thykkuttathil v. Keese, 294
F.R.D. 601, 603 (W.D. Wash. 2013). To make such a showing, a
party must show not only that the additional depositions are
warranted, but also that the depositions the party has
already taken were warranted.
initial matter, the Court finds the portion of the motion
seeking leave to depose Dr. Rosen and Mr. Miller to be moot.
Since the filing of the motion, the parties have stipulated
to taking those depositions. Dkts. #67 and #68. Accordingly,
to that extent, the motion will be denied.
the request for leave to depose Mr. Amoedo, the Court will
grant that portion of the motion. Plaintiffs argue that Mr.
Amoedo's deposition is necessary because he supervised
the manager that allegedly discriminated and retaliated
against Plaintiff. Dkt. #43 at 8-10. Plaintiff seeks
testimony regarding the manager's work history,
performance evaluations, and job competence, all of which Mr.
Amoedo has knowledge. Id. at 9. While Defendant
argues that Plaintiff can obtain this information through
other witnesses, see Dkt. #52 at 5-6, the Court
agrees with Plaintiff that Mr. Amoedo can speak to the
manager's competency, demeanor, personnel issues, and
behavior, and that such testimony is neither cumulative nor
duplicative of the expected testimony of other witnesses.
See Dkt. #59 at 4. The Court is also not persuaded
at this point by Defendant's argument that such testimony
is not relevant. Accordingly, the Court will grant this
portion of Plaintiff's motion and will allow Plaintiff
one additional deposition, for a total of 11 depositions, if
that becomes necessary. The Court recognizes that the
discovery deadline has passed and addresses that issue in the
Conclusion of this Order below.
Defendant's Motion for ...