United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
KATHY M. GEORGE, on behalf of the a ESTATE OF TORY BRADSHAW, Plaintiffs,
BEAVERY COUNTY et al, Defendants.
STEWART DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
SHORT FORM MOTION TO TAKE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS
C. WELLS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is referred to the undersigned in accordance with 28
U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) from Judge Ted Stewart. Pending before
the court is Plaintiffs Motion to Take Additional
Depositions. As set forth below the court will deny the
suit arises from a jail suicide. On September 28, 2018,
Defendants produced for the first time, five shift change
reports. On account of their late production Ms. George seeks
to “take and/or re-take the depositions of Sheriff
Noel; Officer Higgins; Officer Barney; Officer Hussey;
Officer Bealer; Officer Robinson; and Detective
Houchen.” Plaintiff argues these depositions are
necessary because of the late production of the shift change
reports, which according to Plaintiff, are material to Mr.
Bradshaw's suicide. Defendants agree that they made a
mistake in not producing the shift change reports earlier.
Defendants, however, argue Plaintiff “cannot show that
the information contained in these reports should lead to
adding seven new depositions.”
to this dispute are the Federal Discovery rules. Rule
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Rule 30(a)(2)(A), which is to be applied in conjunction with
Rule 26(b), governs the use of depositions. Of note here, is
that a “party must obtain leave of court, … if
the parties have not stipulated to the depositions and: (i)
the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions being
taken under this rule … by the
plaintiff.” Further, if a “deponent has already
been deposed in the case” a party must also obtain leave of
court to retake a deposition.
date, much discovery has already taken place in this case.
Plaintiff has taken thirteen depositions and two
re-depositions - those of Tyler Fails and Randi Rose. Ten
depositions is the standard set forth by Rule 30. Thus,
Plaintiff has already exceeded that number by five.
Defendants readily recognize their mistake and have already
permitted Plaintiff to take or re-take the depositions of
Corp. Rose; Lt. Fails; Officer Davis; Officer Bastian;
Officer Arevalo, and for the first time Deputy Adam Davis. In
addition, Defendants agree to Plaintiff “deposing
William Arevalo and Nathan Bastianto” if it is done in
a timely manner.
considering the proportionality requirements of Rule 26, the
burden seven additional depositions would place on the
parties, and the discovery history of this case, the
undersigned is not persuaded that the additional seven
depositions should occur. Plaintiff has failed to show that
the shift change reports require the additional depositions.
The court will, however, permit the additional depositions
agreed to by Defendants. These are to be scheduled in a
hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Take Additional
Depositions is DENIED.
 ECF No. 56.