Coleman v. District of Columbia
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96840
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Vanessa Coleman sues the District of Columbia in the D.D.C. under two consolidated dockets (09-cv-50 & 11-cv-1322) seeking discovery related to FEMS personnel decisions.
- The Magistrate Judge issued a protective order precluding deposition of FEMS Deputy General Counsel Thelma Chichester and a scheduling-order extension dispute arose.
- Coleman objected to the protective order and to the denial of additional time for discovery; the district court partially granted and partially denied relief.
- The court applies non-dispositive order review for clear error or contrary to law; the standard favors affirming magistrate orders unless there is a definite error.
- The court analyzes three deposition-related issues: (1) whether Chichester may be deposed; (2) whether limited interrogatories may cover Chichester’s communications; (3) whether the scheduling-order extension should be granted.
- The district court ultimately (a) modifies the magistrate’s order to permit up to five interrogatories about Chichester’s communications with two doctors, and (b) affirms the magistrate’s denial of an enlargement of discovery deadlines, keeping the dispositive-motion schedule intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chichester may be deposed. | Coleman seeks deposition to obtain details of communications involving Chichester. | Depositions of opposing counsel are typically disfavored due to burden and privilege/work-product concerns. | Partially granted: limited inquiry permitted via up to five interrogatories concerning Drs. Smith-Jefferies/Jackson; full deposition denied. |
| Whether to allow discovery regarding emails between plaintiff and Chichester. | Coleman argues need to depose for details surrounding emails. | Privilege and burden concerns outweigh benefit of the deposition. | Denied; limited interrogatories allowed instead. |
| Whether to enlarge the discovery deadline to locate and serve Rubin. | Coleman needed more time to depose former Chief Rubin. | Good cause not shown; multiple prior extensions already granted. | Denied; scheduling order remains unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 276 F.R.D. 376 (D.D.C. 2011) (presumptions against deposing opposing counsel; factors for burden)
- In re Friedman, 350 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (limited-deposition considerations when third-party witnesses have memory gaps)
- Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 69 (D.D.C. 2003) (work product protections and risk of revealing mental impressions)
- Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A., 263 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (privilege considerations in discovery of communications)
- Shelton v. Am. Motors Sales Corp., 805 F.2d 1327 (2d Cir. 1986) (general presumption against deposing opposing counsel)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (S. Ct. 1947) (concept of privilege and work product protection in discovery)
- Neuder v. Battelle Pac. Nw. Nat. Lab., 194 F.R.D. 289 (D.D.C. 2000) (standard for reviewing magistrate non-dispositive orders)