Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shokri v. The Boeing Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

September 29, 2017

THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delawa corporation, Defendant.




         This matter comes before the Court on the following three discovery motions:

1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Three Additional Depositions Beyond the Presumptive Limit Imposed by FRCP 30 (Dkt. #43);
2) Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time for Rebuttal Expert Disclosures and Completion of Expert Discovery (Dkt. #45); and
3) Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Requests and to Re-Open Plaintiff's Deposition (Dkt. #49).

         The Court has reviewed these motions and now resolves them as set forth below.


         On July 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.

         Since 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.[1] The instant discovery motions are now ripe for review.


         A. Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Depositions

         Plaintiff 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.[2]

         Federal 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.

         As an 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.

         As for 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.

         B. Defendant's Motion for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.