840 N.W.2d 414
Minn.2013Background
- TC/American sued Custom Conveyor for payment; Custom Conveyor counterclaimed for breach of contract.
- Scheduling order in Sept. 2010 set discovery deadline Jan 21, 2011, pretrial motions deadline Mar 18, 2011, trial Jun 20, 2011.
- In Apr 2011 Custom Conveyor sought subpoenas to depose two Las Vegas witnesses (Brown, Israel) during week of Jun 6, 2011, to preserve trial testimony.
- TC/American opposed, arguing depositions were barred by the discovery deadline.
- District court denied the deposition request and granted a protective order precluding the depositions; appellate court affirmed.
- Post-trial, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the district court abused its discretion in denying the depositions and granting the protective order because the deposition to preserve trial testimony is not covered by the scheduling order and good-cause factors apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deposition to preserve trial testimony of unavailable out-of-state witnesses falls outside the scheduling order. | Custom Conveyor argues the deposition is not discovery and not limited by the deadline. | TC/American contends the deposition is barred by the discovery deadline. | Not covered by the deadline; not precluded as a matter of law. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the protective order precluding the depositions. | Custom Conveyor established the deposition's materiality and unavailability. | TC/American showed potential prejudice and lack of good cause. | Abused discretion; no proper good-cause showing. |
| Whether Custom Conveyor is entitled to a new trial due to the protective order error. | Excluding key witnesses prejudiced Custom Conveyor. | Prejudice shown by district court, not adequately proven. | Yes, prejudicial error; new trial remanded. |
| What factors govern good cause for precluding/allowing depositions to preserve trial testimony. | Court should permit preservation when necessary and not unduly prejudicial. | Need clear standard; district court applied wrong standard. | Court adopts a multi-factor good-cause test (purpose, materiality, prejudice, time before trial). |
| Does scheduling-order discovery deadline apply to depositions to preserve trial testimony? | No; preservation depositions are distinct in purpose. | Deadline is broad for discovery depositions. | Scheduling deadline does not bar preservation depositions; but protective-order standards apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2002) (district court not abusing discretion enforcing discovery deadline when timely evidence)
- Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999) (good-cause for protective order; timing matters)
- Estate of Gee v. Bloomington Hosp. & Health Care Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 729269 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (good-cause factors in protective-order analysis)
- Frazier v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 811 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. 2012) (review of new-trial motions for abuse of discretion)
- Erickson v. MacArthur, 414 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1987) (discovery matters reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2006) (prejudice as a test for new-trial relief)
- Johnson v. Washington Cnty., 518 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 1994) (prejudice as primary consideration for new-trial relief)
- Minnesota Rules cited, Minn. R. Civ. P. 30.01; 26.03; 16.02 (n/a) (procedural framework for depositions, protective orders, scheduling)