×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Seven Hour Deposition Limit
Defendants moved to depose the plaintiff for 14 hours over two days rather
than seven hours in one day as contemplated by amended Rule 30(d)(2),
Fed.R.Civ.P. At 24: "However, the better practice is for the deposition
to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven
hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to
extend the deposition for a specific additional time period. If the
parties cannot reach a stipulation, then Court intervention may be sought."
The court directs that the deposition be commenced for seven hours; it
will intervene only if the parties can't agree to the additional time
needed to complete the deposition. See: Malec v. Trustees of Boston
College, 208 F.R.D. 23 (D.Mass. 2002).
than seven hours in one day as contemplated by amended Rule 30(d)(2),
Fed.R.Civ.P. At 24: "However, the better practice is for the deposition
to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven
hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to
extend the deposition for a specific additional time period. If the
parties cannot reach a stipulation, then Court intervention may be sought."
The court directs that the deposition be commenced for seven hours; it
will intervene only if the parties can't agree to the additional time
needed to complete the deposition. See: Malec v. Trustees of Boston
College, 208 F.R.D. 23 (D.Mass. 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Malec v. Trustees of Boston College
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 208 F.R.D. 23 (D.Mass. 2002) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
NICOLE MALEC, Plaintiff, v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE, YOSHIO SAITO, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2001-11599-RBC n1
n1 With the parties' consent, this case has been referred and reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes including trial and the entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
208 F.R.D. 23; 2002 U.S. Dist.
July 8, 2002, Decided
DISPOSITION: Defendants' motion for leave to extend deposition of plaintiff pretermitted.
COUNSEL: [**1] For NICOLE MALEC, Plaintiff: Paul F. Wood, Law Office of Paul F. Wood, Boston, MA.
For TRUSTEES OF BOSTON, YOSHIO SAITO, Defendants: Miriam J. McKendall, Boston, MA.
JUDGES: ROBERT B. COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION BY: ROBERT B. COLLINGS
OPINION: [*24]
MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF (# 21)
COLLINGS, U.S.M.J.
Defendants' counsel has filed a Motion for Leave to Extend Deposition of Plaintiff (# 21) seeking Court authorization to depose the plaintiff for fourteen hours over two days, more than twice the limit of seven hours in one day contained in Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R. Civ.P. The motion has been filed before the deposition has commenced and before any testimony has been taken. The asserted reasons for the request are that there are three claims in the case, one of which is against both defendants, and there are a significant number items about which there is a need for testimony.
Obviously, the Court will allow more than seven hours "if needed for a fair examination of the plaintiff." Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. However, the better practice is for the deposition to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven [**2] hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to extend the deposition for a specific additional time period. If the parties cannot reach a stipulation, then Court intervention may be sought. Id.
Accordingly, the deposition shall go forward for seven hours during one day. At the conclusion of the seven hours, if counsel for the defendants needs more time, he/she shall inform plaintiff's counsel of that fact and counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to reach a stipulation as to the additional time which will be needed to complete the deposition. Id. If agreement cannot be reached, defendants' counsel may notify the Court in writing of that fact, the amount of additional time which is needed, and the reasons therefor. Counsel for the plaintiff may respond within fourteen (14) days and the Court will rule on the Motion for Leave to Extend Deposition of Plaintiff (# 21). In the meantime, the motion is pretermitted.
July 8, 2002.
ROBERT B. COLLINGS
United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2001-11599-RBC n1
n1 With the parties' consent, this case has been referred and reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes including trial and the entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
208 F.R.D. 23; 2002 U.S. Dist.
July 8, 2002, Decided
DISPOSITION: Defendants' motion for leave to extend deposition of plaintiff pretermitted.
COUNSEL: [**1] For NICOLE MALEC, Plaintiff: Paul F. Wood, Law Office of Paul F. Wood, Boston, MA.
For TRUSTEES OF BOSTON, YOSHIO SAITO, Defendants: Miriam J. McKendall, Boston, MA.
JUDGES: ROBERT B. COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION BY: ROBERT B. COLLINGS
OPINION: [*24]
MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF (# 21)
COLLINGS, U.S.M.J.
Defendants' counsel has filed a Motion for Leave to Extend Deposition of Plaintiff (# 21) seeking Court authorization to depose the plaintiff for fourteen hours over two days, more than twice the limit of seven hours in one day contained in Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R. Civ.P. The motion has been filed before the deposition has commenced and before any testimony has been taken. The asserted reasons for the request are that there are three claims in the case, one of which is against both defendants, and there are a significant number items about which there is a need for testimony.
Obviously, the Court will allow more than seven hours "if needed for a fair examination of the plaintiff." Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. However, the better practice is for the deposition to go forward to determine how much is able to be covered in the seven [**2] hours and, then, if additional time is needed, for counsel to stipulate to extend the deposition for a specific additional time period. If the parties cannot reach a stipulation, then Court intervention may be sought. Id.
Accordingly, the deposition shall go forward for seven hours during one day. At the conclusion of the seven hours, if counsel for the defendants needs more time, he/she shall inform plaintiff's counsel of that fact and counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to reach a stipulation as to the additional time which will be needed to complete the deposition. Id. If agreement cannot be reached, defendants' counsel may notify the Court in writing of that fact, the amount of additional time which is needed, and the reasons therefor. Counsel for the plaintiff may respond within fourteen (14) days and the Court will rule on the Motion for Leave to Extend Deposition of Plaintiff (# 21). In the meantime, the motion is pretermitted.
July 8, 2002.
ROBERT B. COLLINGS
United States Magistrate Judge