Miller v. Massad-Zion Motor Sales Co., Inc.
3:12-cv-01363
D. Conn.Oct 6, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Judy Miller seeks to reopen the January 15, 2014 deposition of defendant Steven Zion after defendants produced additional documents and Zion submitted an errata sheet altering his testimony.
- Zion was deposed for one full day (228 transcript pages); some documents were produced shortly after that deposition and others only after subsequent discovery rulings and in-camera review.
- Plaintiff reserved the right at the deposition to keep it open for supplemental production; she later served additional discovery (including extensive Requests for Admission) and sought leave to reopen Zion’s deposition.
- Defendants moved for a protective order and to quash the continued deposition, arguing plaintiff already had or could obtain the information elsewhere and that Zion’s errata changes did not justify further questioning.
- The Magistrate Judge applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B) and 30(e), allowing limited reopening where new information arises or where errata materially alter testimony; distinguished between documents plaintiff already had and those produced later after in-camera review.
- Ruling: deposition reopening denied as to documents plaintiff already possessed; permitted limited reopening for questions tied to newly produced financial records only to the extent not covered by plaintiff’s Requests for Admission; permitted a one-hour reopening limited to substantial errata entries and to be scheduled alongside Zion’s related state-court deposition; discovery deadline extended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to reopen deposition is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B) | Miller says she reserved the right at deposition and needs to question Zion about documents produced after his deposition (notes, financials, photographs, meds) | Zion says plaintiff had some documents before the deposition, others were not newly disclosed in time to justify reopening, and discovery can obtain the rest; Rule 30(d)(1) seven-hour limit applies | Granted in part: deposition reopening denied for documents plaintiff already had; limited reopening permitted for newly produced financial records but largely mooted by Requests for Admission answers due that week |
| Whether errata changes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) justify further deposition | Miller contends Zion's substantive errata render portions of the transcript incomplete/useless without further testimony | Zion contends errata do not warrant further deposition and changes are permissible under Rule 30(e) | Granted in part: reopening limited to fifteen substantive errata entries; questioning limited to one hour and to occur immediately before or after Zion's state-court deposition on same day |
| Appropriate scope and timing of any reopened deposition | Miller seeks broad follow-up tied to all newly produced materials and errata | Zion seeks protective order/quash and proposes alternate sources (RFA responses, state deposition) | Scope limited to financial-record issues not covered by RFAs and to the specific errata entries; timing set to coincide with state deposition; discovery deadline extended to accommodate |
| Whether discovery schedule should be adjusted | Miller needs time to pursue reopened deposition and receive RFA responses | Defendants noted scheduling and argued many issues resolved by RFAs/state deposition | Court extended discovery deadline to Oct. 14, 2014 and moved dispositive motion deadline accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- None (opinion principally cites unpublished or WL decisions without official reporter citations)