NRDC v. Ill. Power Res. Generating, LLC - No. 13-cv-1181, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205542 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2017)

Rule:

Depositions are generally limited to 7 hours, but can be lengthened if additional time if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. (d)(1).

Facts:

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Additional Deposition Time and Costs in Response to Improper and Obstructive Objections; Expedited Ruling Requested (d/e 160) (Motion). On November 30, 2017, Plaintiffs took the personal deposition of Ted Lindenbusch, Plant Manager of the Edwards Power Plant operated by Illinois Power. Plaintiffs asserted that Defense counsel obstructed the November 30 deposition. Plaintiffs asked the Court to direct Defendant Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC (Illinois Power), to make Lindenbusch available for an additional half-day (3.5 hours) of individual deposition in Chicago, Illinois no later than December 19, 2017; pay $2,130 for the expected court reporting costs for the additional deposition, and for the incremental costs the Plaintiffs incurred to obtain a rush transcript for this Motion; and order Illinois Power's counsel to refrain from improper objections and comments during depositions. The Plaintiffs argued that defense counsel improperly made argumentative and suggestive objections that impeded the deposition. Plaintiffs further complained that defense counsel improperly directed Lindenbusch not to answer a question. 

Issue:

Should the motion to compel additional deposition time be allowed?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court found that some extension of Lindenbusch's deposition was appropriate to fairly examine him. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d). The six improper argumentative objections impeded the deposition slightly, and defense counsel improperly indicated that Lindenbusch did not have to answer three questions, which violated Rule 30(c)(2). Therefore, the Court authorized an additional hour of deposition time for the personal deposition of Ted Lindenbusch. The Court suggested that the parties arrange for the additional deposition time to occur in conjunction with the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Lindenbusch scheduled for later this month. The Court did not require the deponent Lindenbusch to travel to Chicago for the additional hour of deposition. The Court did not impose any additional sanction for the six argumentative objections and the three improper statements that Lindenbusch did not have to answer a particular question. Lindenbusch answered two of the three questions. The six improper argumentative objections impeded the deposition only slightly. The Court believes the additional hour of deposition is a sufficient remedy under the circumstances. The cases cited by Plaintiffs, again, involved more egregious behavior. A further sanction was not appropriate in this case.