Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
March 14, 2013, Decided; March 14, 2013, Filed
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Re-Open the Deposition of Defendant Dana A. Hogan, Motion for Sanctions for Defendant Hogan's Discovery Abuses, Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions of Defendants Mayflower and Clark (Doc. 99), and Defendants' Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Confer in Good Faith (Doc. 105). The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions to Re-Open and Compel Depositions and denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. The Court further grants Defendants' Motion for Sanctions.
In April 2012, the Court issued a Joint Case Management Order for this matter setting the deadline for the completion of fact discovery as January 11, 2013. (Doc. 59 ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs noticed [*2] the deposition of Defendant Dana Hogan in August 2012 and the parties agreed to conduct the deposition on October 19, 2012 in Dallas, Texas because of Hogan's trucking schedule. (Doc. 99-2, Ex. 2.) The deposition commenced as planned. After a few hours into testimony, Defendants' counsel, Felice Guerrieri, informed Plaintiffs' counsel, George Bleus, that he would need to leave at 5 p.m. to travel back to the East coast but offered to continue the deposition at a later date if necessary. (Doc. 105-2, Ex. 13 at 82.) As the deposition proceeded, Guerrieri objected to Bleus' lines of inquiry, arguing on the record that they were repetitive, abusive and wasteful. Bleus argued that his lines of inquiry were relevant and subsequently contacted the Court to clarify the permissibility of his questioning. The Court found that the line of questioning that the Plaintiff insisted on pursuing relating to who drafted Defendants' discovery responses was meritless and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity. Defendants suspended Hogan's deposition at 5 p.m. and opposed a continuance but did not move for a protective order. (Doc. 99-2, Exs. 6, 6-c.)
Over the next several [*3] weeks, the parties exchanged correspondence asserting several areas of disagreement regarding discovery including re-opening Hogan's deposition, noticing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants Mayflower and Clark, taking three depositions of current and former Mayflower employees who were not listed as witnesses nor designated as 30(b)(6) deponents, various document production issues, and the necessity of extending the fact discovery deadline. On November 13, 2012, while the parties had not yet personally conferred, Bleus informed Guerrieri that he had contacted the Court to set up a teleconference in order to resolve the disputes. (Doc. 105-1, Ex. 6.) The Court held a teleconference on November 29, 2012 and ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing regarding the discovery disputes. (Doc. 95.)
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35381 *; 2013 WL 1047012
Larry Whiting, Leroy Whiting and Lorenzo Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Dana A. Hogan; Clark Moving and Storage, Inc., and Mayflower Transit, LLC, Defendants.
Subsequent History: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part Whiting v. Hogan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69604 (D. Ariz., May 16, 2013)
deposition, discovery, questions, deponent, parties, terminated, notice, confer, designate, answers, bad faith, sanctions, re-opening, matters, telephonically, preparation, harassing, inquired, driver, travel, discovery response, protective order, good faith, deadline, motion for sanctions, discovery motion, attorney-client, convenient, positions, suspended