Matheis v. CDCR
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for leave to take the depositions of 13 incarcerated witnesses, which would require expanding the standard 10-deposition limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). The Court granted permission to depose the witnesses within the existing limit but denied the request to expand the limit, finding that Defendants had not established good cause.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting permission to depose the identified incarcerated witnesses within the presumptive 10-deposition limit.“The Court GRANTS Defendants permission to depose any of the incarcerated persons identified in their Application as potential witnesses to the alleged incidents at issue within the presumptive 10-deposition limit of the Federal Rules.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the default rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i), which allows 10 depositions without leave. Since the defendants requested 13, the court allowed the first 10 (or any 10 of the 13) to proceed under the standard rule. The conditions imposed (remote means, waiver of reporter presence due to pandemic) are consistent with the court's inherent authority to manage discovery and the specific provisions of Rule 30(b)(4) and (c)(1). |
Denying the request to expand the deposition limit from 10 to 14.“However, the Court finds Defendants have not established good cause to increase the deposition limit from 10 to 14.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) for exceeding the presumptive limit. It cited *Lloyd v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co.* and *Ocean Garden Prod. Inc. v. Blessings Inc.* for the proposition that a party must make a particularized showing of necessity. The order states that the defendants failed to meet this burden. While the order does not detail the specific deficiencies in the defendants' showing, the legal standard applied is correct, and the denial without prejudice allows for re-filing if the need becomes apparent after the initial 10 depositions. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i)) and the standard for exceeding the limit (good cause/particularized showing). It cites relevant district court cases that align with the general federal standard. The distinction between granting leave for the standard 10 depositions and denying the expansion is procedurally sound. The waiver of the court reporter's physical presence is a reasonable accommodation for the pandemic context under Rule 30(c)(1).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN THOMAS MATHEIS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-2100-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART EX PARTE MOTION TO TAKE THE 14 C. GODINEZ, et al., DEPOSITIONS OF 15 Defendants. INCARCERATED PERSONS 16 [ECF No. 43] 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Take 19 the Depositions of Incarcerated Persons. ECF No. 43. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 30(a)(2)(B), Defendants seek leave of Court to take depositions of 13 incarcerated persons, 21 all of whom Defendants believe are witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the incidents at 22 issue in this case.1 Plaintiff has identified 8 of the 13 inmates as witnesses to the alleged 23 incidents, while Defendants have identified an additional 5 inmate witnesses. Id. at 3-4. 24 25 1 These witnesses include: James Martin Rose, CDCR No. E92035, Richard J. Donovan 26 Correctional Facility; Anthony Zendejas, CDCR No. AE4128, Richard J. Donovan 27 Correctional Facility; Paul Loyde Hensley, CDCR No. J86000, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; Jose Arreguin, CDCR No. H86282, Richard J. Donovan Correctional 28 1 The Court has already granted leave to Defendants to take Plaintiff’s deposition 2 (ECF No. 42). Therefore, allowing Defendants to depose the 13 witnesses as requested 3 requires that the Court expand the number of permissible depositions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 30(a)(2)(A)(i) from 10 to 14. 5 Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 6 Defendants’ Application (ECF No. 43). The Court GRANTS Defendants permission to 7 depose any of the incarcerated persons identified in their Application as potential witnesses 8 to the alleged incidents at issue within the presumptive 10-deposition limit of the Federal 9 Rules. On reasonable notice to Plaintiff, Defendants may depose such incarcerated persons 10 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the institution’s rules and 11 regulations, including the presence of correctional officers during the deposition. 12 Additionally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4), the Court ORDERS that 13 Defendants may take such depositions by remote means if Defendants so choose. In light 14 of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Court further WAIVES the requirement of Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 30(c)(1), and will permit the Court Reporter recording the depositions to do so 16 remotely. 17 However, the Court finds Defendants have not established good cause to increase 18 the deposition limit from 10 to 14. See Lloyd v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co., No. C06-5325 19 FDB, 2007 WL 906150, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2007) (“A party seeking to exceed 20 the presumptive number of depositions must make a particularized showing of why the 21 discovery is necessary”); Ocean Garden Prod. Inc. v. Blessings Inc., No. CV-18-00322- 22 23 Albert Sidney Ward, CDCR No. D02841, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; 24 Perucho Neal, CDCR No. AB8302, California Men’s Colony; Carlos Ramon Roberson, 25 CDCR No. P16623, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; Larry Michael Pineda, CDCR No. BF5927, Corcoran Correctional Facility; Raymond Davis Miller, CDCR No. 26 BD1461, Salinas Valley State Prison; Rafael Angel Pena, CDCR No. AN5914, Richard J. 27 Donovan Correctional Facility; Joseph Rozell Childs, CDCR No. C94633, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; and Juan Jose Enriquez, CDCR No. BF7163, Richard J. 28 1 || TUC-RM, 2020 WL 570947, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2020) (“The party moving to exceed 2 ||the presumptive ten-deposition limit has the burden to demonstrate good cause for doing 3 (quotations and citation omitted). 4 Accordingly, the request to take depositions in excess of the 10-deposition limit is 5 ||DENIED without prejudice. If, after Defendants have taken 10 depositions, they 6 determine that additional witness testimony beyond the limit is necessary for their case, 7 may re-file a motion seeking to exceed the limit and explaining why the discovery is 8 ||necessary. The Court will not entertain such a motion until Defendants have already met 9 || the 10-deposition limit. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || Dated: July 1, 2021 _ArwioonH. Kovolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28