Back to Results

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00156.png

Source: GIUFFRE_MAXWELL  •  Size: 317.7 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 95.2%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 28 counsel on April 11, 2016 for a deposition a month later on May 13, 2016. Just days before the deposition, Defendant’s counsel said they didn’t realize the deposition was scheduled and that they could not proceed forward on that date. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, May 5, 2016 E- mail Correspondence Regarding Scheduled Depositions. This forced Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to have to reset the witness for June 10, 2016. Of course, with each delay, Ms. Giuffre is hamstrung in identifying which further witnesses need to be deposed. Under Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party who wishes to conduct more than ten depositions without stipulation by the opposing party must seek leave of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Once such a motion is made, “[t]he court must grant a request to exceed ten depositions unless the additional depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the requesting party had a prior opportunity in discovery to obtain the information sought, or the burden or expense of additional depositions would outweigh any likely benefit.” Jn re Weatherford Int'l Sec. Litig., No. 11 CIV. 1646 LAK JCF, 2013 WL 5762923, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610, 628 (2d Cir.2001)). Given the liberal discovery allowed by the rules, the burden on the party seeking additional depositions is not great. Rule 30(a)(2)'s ten-deposition limit is “a useful and appropriate ‘Stop’ sign, not as a ‘Road Closed’ sign. Once any party has taken ten depositions, it makes perfect sense to require that party to demonstrate the need for more. But that showing need not be onerous. If the need exists, discovery should not be prevented.” Scott v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 298 F.R.D. 400, 402-03 (N.D. Iowa 2014). As the Court can readily determine from the summary of anticipated testimony above, none of the anticipated testimony is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Rather, all of the anticipated testimony goes to central and now-disputed issues in the case. The Court should be 19

Document Preview

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00156.png

Click to view full size

Document Details

Filename Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00156.png
File Size 317.7 KB
OCR Confidence 95.2%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,165 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:32:32.563547