Jones-Walton v. Villas at Lake Eve Condominium Association, Inc., 6:15-cv-00995

Fifty-nine plaintiffs sued after alleged racially motivated wrongful evictions from Lake Eve Resort in Orlando.
Parties initially sought 100 depositions per side; court previously limited discovery to 10 depositions per side.
Defendants had taken ten depositions without leave; they now seek leave to take at least 35 more, identifying 15 named witnesses plus categories (additional plaintiffs and plaintiffs' experts).
Plaintiffs did not oppose the renewed motion; movants represent plaintiffs consented to the 15 named depositions (scrivener’s error reduced claimed number to 15).
Court reviewed Rule 30(a)(2) standards and precedent requiring a particularized showing for exceeding ten depositions and found defendants’ showing sufficient given the case’s circumstances.
Court granted leave to take the 15 identified depositions and up to 20 additional depositions of persons who are plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ experts, or witnesses to defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants may exceed the 10-deposition presumptive limit under Rule 30(a)(2)	Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion (no substantive argument in record).	Defendants argued additional depositions are necessary to develop damages evidence and to explore alleged misconduct; identified 15 named witnesses and categories likely needing depositions.	Court granted leave: 15 named depositions plus up to 20 additional depositions within specified categories.
Whether movants satisfied the requirement to justify depositions already taken without leave	No response from plaintiffs.	Defendants identified rationale for the ten depositions taken and demonstrated need for further fact and damages discovery.	Court found movants satisfied the requirement to justify prior depositions.
Whether a "particularized showing" is required and satisfied to take more depositions	N/A (no opposition).	Defendants relied on named witnesses and categorical identification of other necessary deponents to meet the particularized showing standard.	Court held the identification of 15 named witnesses and categories was sufficient in this unique case.
Scope of additional depositions the court should permit	N/A	Defendants requested at least 35 additional depositions.	Court limited relief to 15 named plus 20 additional deponents falling into listed categories (total up to 35).

Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (party seeking >10 depositions must demonstrate necessity for each deposition taken without leave)
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 578 (D. Minn. 1999) (requiring particularized showing for additional depositions)
Kramer v. Gwinnett County, Ga., 306 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (failure to respond to a motion may be treated as indication the motion is unopposed)
Jones v. Bank of Am., N.A., [citation="564 F. App'x 432"] (11th Cir.) (unpublished opinion cited as persuasive authority on treating unopposed motions)