Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company, No. 3:2013cv06529 - Document 879 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 847 MOTION to Compel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszman; Plaintiffs are granted leave to continue the fact witness deposition of Mr. Szuszman, but are limited to four (4) additional hours rather than the seven (7) hours requested; directing the parties to promptly meet and confer as to a convenient date and location for the conclusion of the deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/23/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson et al v. Ford Motor Company Doc. 879 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION CH ARLES JOH N SON , e t al., Plain tiffs , v. Cas e N o .: 3 :13 -cv-0 6 52 9 FORD MOTOR COMPAN Y, D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel the Continued Deposition of Paul Szuszm an. (ECF No. 847). Defendant Ford Motor Com pany (“Ford”) filed a m em orandum in opposition to the proposed continuation, (ECF No. 859), and Plaintiffs replied. (ECF No. 863). On J anuary 13, 20 17, the undersigned conducted a hearing on the m otion and took the m atter under advisem ent in order to fully exam ine the prior deposition testim ony of Mr. Szuszm an given in his personal capacity. Having considered the testim ony and the argum ents of counsel, the Court GRAN TS, in part, and D EN IES , in part, Plaintiffs’ m otion. Plaintiffs are granted leave to continue the fact witness deposition of Mr. Szuszm an, but are lim ited to fo u r ( 4 ) ad d itio n al h o u rs rather than the seven (7) hours requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (d) provides a presum ptive tim e lim it of seven hours for the taking of a deposition in any civil action. This lim it m ay be extended by stipulation or order of the court. Additional tim e m ust be perm itted consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) “if 1 Dockets.Justia.com needed to fairly exam ine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circum stance im pedes or delays the exam ination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (d)(1). The party seeking to extend the exam ination “is expected to show good cause to justify such an order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (d) advisory com m ittee’s note to 20 0 0 am endm ent. When determ ining whether the m oving party has dem onstrated good cause, the court should consider and weigh a variety of factors, such as: (1) the com plexity of the case; (2) the proportionality of the proposed discovery in the context of discovery already com pleted; (3) the cum ulative or duplicative nature of the testim ony sought; (4) the burden to the witness and parties; (5) whether the deposition covers events occurring over a long period of tim e; and (6) whether the discovery sought to be obtained in the deposition can be gleaned from som e other source that is less expensive, less burdensom e, and m ore convenient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (d)(1); also Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (d) advisory com m ittee’s note to 20 0 0 am endm ent. The court m ust consider m otions to extend the seven-hour lim it im posed by Rule 30 (d) on a case-by-case basis, as no two cases will be entirely alike. In this case, Plaintiffs assert that there is good cause to extend the seven-hour lim it. They contend that Mr. Szuszm an is a critical witness; indeed, Ford identified Mr. Szuszm an as one of only two individuals possessing knowledge of issues involving the electronic throttle control system in the subject vehicles. Moreover, m any of Ford’s witnesses deferred to Mr. Szuszm an as being the individual m ore knowledgeable about the architecture and design of the electronic throttle control system and the brake over accelerator function. Plaintiffs add that Mr. Szuszm an’s knowledge is highly technical and covers a num ber of years, m aking it im possible to obtain in seven hours all of the critical inform ation known to Mr. Szuszm an. Plaintiffs claim that extending Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition would be proportional to the needs of the case, considering the com plexity of 2 the issues, and, given his central role to the m atters in dispute, the m ost efficient way to obtain the rem aining inform ation. In contrast, Ford argues that, for m any reasons, extending Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition would be burdensom e and unfair, as well as disproportional to the needs of the case. As an exam ple, Ford points out that Mr. Szuszm an was already deposed two full days as a corporate designee under Rule 30 (b)(6) and then testified for another eight hours in his personal capacity. Ford contends that Plaintiffs have had am ple opportunity to ask Mr. Szuszm an all of the questions pertinent to his role as a powertrain engineer; however, Plaintiffs m eandered at the third deposition and strayed from the issues that they had identified as key prior to the outset of Mr. Szuszm an’s testim ony. Ford also notes that this Court lim ited Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition to seven hours in a Septem ber 20 15 order. Consequently, Plaintiffs knew in advance the lim itations associated with Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition and should have been better prepared to work within the confines of the Court’s order. Ford adds that Plaintiffs should not be rewarded for failing to com ply with the Court’s reasonable restrictions on discovery. At first blush, Ford’s argum ents appeared com pelling. Clearly, Mr. Szuszm an has testified on m ultiple occasions in this case; albeit twice at Ford’s choice. Furtherm ore, Plaintiffs have been given considerable latitude in conducting discovery. However, after reviewing Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition transcript and weighing the various factors, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiffs have shown good cause for an additional four hours of testim ony from Mr. Szuszm an. This case covers a decade of inform ation and involves num erous vehicle m odels. Much of the docum ent production consists of highly technical m aterial. Mr. Szuszm an has been identified by Ford and its employees as an individual with specialized and wide-ranging knowledge about the electronic throttle control system 3 and its evolution. Accordingly, allowing Plaintiffs to com plete Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition would be the m ost convenient and least burdensom e way of obtaining the inform ation sought by Plaintiffs. While Plaintiffs m ay arguably have asked som e unnecessary or overly technical questions at Mr. Szuszm an’s deposition, for the m ost part, the questioning was focused and relevant. Plaintiffs did inquire regarding som e of the key issues identified in advance of the deposition, but sim ply did not have an opportunity to com plete their questioning. Nonetheless, the undersigned is cognizant of the burden on Mr. Szuszm an and Ford in disrupting Mr. Szuszm an’s regular business duties for a continuation of his deposition. In addition, when considering the topics that rem ain to be explored, Plaintiffs should be able to obtain all necessary inform ation in significantly less than seven hours. For that reason, Plaintiffs shall be lim ited to four additional hours of testim ony. Reasonably in advance of the continuation of the deposition, Plaintiffs should consider providing Mr. Szuszm an with any docum ents Plaintiffs intend to address at the deposition, so that he can be prepared to discuss them . The parties are ORD ERED to prom ptly m eet and confer as to a convenient date and location for the conclusion of the deposition. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Mem orandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. EN TERED : J anuary 23, 20 17 4
]]>
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.
