Stevens v. Brigham Young University - Idaho et al, No. 4:2016cv00530 - Document 236 (D. Idaho 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that plaintiff is entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the Topic #10 contained in the amended deposition notice. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stevens v. Brigham Young University - Idaho et al Doc. 236 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO LORI STEVENS Plaintiff, Case No. 4:16-CV-530-BLW v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY – IDAHO dba BYU-Idaho, a Utah corporation and SUSAN STOKES, personal representative of the Estate of Stephan Stokes, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. The Court has before it a discovery dispute between the parties. Plaintiff Stevens wants to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant BYU-I to inquire into benefits a crucial witness – Danielle Spencer – may have received from the University. BYU-I objects on the grounds that (1) the amended deposition notice was untimely as it was sent after discovery had closed, and (2) counsel was able to question the witness BYU-I would designate under Rule 30(b)(6) at the evidentiary hearing held on November 12, 2019. The parties filed briefs (docket nos. 164 & 165) and held a mediation session with the Court’s Law Clerk. The Court made clear in its prior decision (docket no. 232) that at trial, Stevens could conduct a full inquiry into the benefits Spencer may have received in exchange for Dockets.Justia.com her testimony: (1) legal fees: (2) grades; (3) deferments; and (4) free counseling.1 So the inquiry is relevant and discoverable. While the amended deposition notice was late, the Court finds persuasive plaintiff’s argument that she was not aware of crucial evidence until the end of the deadline and diligently filed the amended notice quickly thereafter. Moreover, the Court finds that it constrained somewhat the questioning at the November 12, 2019 hearing and so that inquiry cannot be substituted for a full Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the Topic #10 contained in the amended deposition notice. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that plaintiff is entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the Topic #10 contained in the amended deposition notice. DATED: December 19, 2019 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill United States District Judge 1 It appears that plaintiff may not pursue free counseling, but that is her choice – the Court has not taken off the table any of the four items listed above as grounds for inquiry during trial, including grades. Even though Wray testified credibly, plaintiff is still entitled to present his testimony at trial on grades because the jury, not the Court, is the ultimate judge of credibility. Likewise, plaintiff is entitled to inquire into the meetings between Woodard and Spencer.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
