Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00554/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FREDRICK R. WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 15-cv-554-JDW-GMB

) [WO]

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL )

GROUP, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Increase the Number of 

Depositions Allowed to the Plaintiff Under the Discovery Plan (Doc. 19). Defendants 

have filed a joint response in opposition to that motion (Doc. 24). On the basis of the 

filings, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set out below.

Absent a stipulation, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires leave of court for 

a party to take more than ten depositions in any case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). 

Courts are cautioned, however, to grant leave only “to the extent consistent with Rule 

26(b)(1) and (b)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). Of primary significance here, this means 

that the court must be guided by Rule 26(b)(1)’s limitation on the scope of discoverable 

materials to those which are

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 

case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, 

the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.

Case 2:15-cv-00554-JDW-GMB Document 25 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2015). Applying previous versions of Rule 26(b)(1), courts 

have “generally held that a party seeking to exceed the presumptive number of 

depositions must make a ‘particularized showing of why the discovery is necessary.’” 

Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Corp. v. Dawson Land Dev. Co., 2003 WL 22012201, at 

*1 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (quoting Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 

578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999)). 

Here, there has been no particularized showing. In fact, Plaintiff’s motion does 

not even identify the individuals he seeks to depose except for noting that two are expert 

witnesses for the defense. See Doc. 19 at 2; Doc. 19 at 3 (stating only that it “appears that 

at least fifteen (15) depositions will be required”). Plaintiff also does not address Rule 

26(b)(1)’s proportionality analysis. Nevertheless, the court holds that on the balance the 

record before it justifies one additional deposition beyond the ten provided in Rule 

30(a)(2) and the Joint Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting, Doc. 11 at 3, which will allow

Plaintiff to depose all of Defendants’ expert witnesses. See Doc. 19 at 2.

1

 

This ruling is based in part on the court’s independent assessment of the Rule 

26(b)(1) factors and in part on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). Plaintiff’s core 

theory in this case is that Defendants “willfully and wantonly delayed” their approval of

his surgery in an attempt to coerce him to settle his claims under a workers’ compensation 

insurance policy. Doc. 1-4 at 6. In as much as they have been identified as trial 

 1 Plaintiff has conducted nine depositions to date, including one of three expert witnesses designated by Defendants. 

See Doc. 19 at 2; Doc. 24 at 4–5.

Case 2:15-cv-00554-JDW-GMB Document 25 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3

witnesses by Defendants, the two un-deposed expert witnesses are certain to have 

information of importance to the litigation, including the amount in controversy.

Defendants have exclusive access to their retained experts’ information absent

depositions or some other form of discovery, and the burden and expense of allowing 

these two witnesses to sit for deposition does not outweigh the benefit to Plaintiff of 

obtaining this information and testing the witnesses’ theories and opinions prior to trial.2

Perhaps more critically, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provide that 

“[a] party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions 

may be presented at trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4). The court must effectuate this rule, 

and cannot ignore the crucial role of expert witnesses in modern civil litigation. It is 

therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff may depose both of Defendants’ designated expert 

witnesses who have not been deposed, for a total of eleven depositions in this case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Increase the Number of 

Depositions Allowed to the Plaintiff Under the Discovery Plan (Doc. 19) is GRANTED in 

part, as further set out above. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.3 

 2 Admittedly, this conclusion requires some measure of supposition since Plaintiff has not described the expert 

witnesses’ areas of anticipated testimony. The court nevertheless finds that the two experts’ depositions are 

appropriate for the reasons stated herein. Defendants also offer that Plaintiff has not deposed a corporate 

representative for AIG Claims, Inc. Doc. 24 at 5. However, Plaintiff makes no reference to a corporate representative 

in his motion, and there is no evidence before the court that a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) request has even been made. 

Under these circumstances, the court has insufficient information on which to conclude that the contemplated

corporate representative’s deposition would be relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses or proportional to the 

case’s needs, and thus cannot make the requisite findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and 30(a)(2)(A)(i). The 

parties are, of course, free to stipulate to this deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A). 3 Defendants’ joint response references the impending discovery deadline, see Doc. 24 at 6, but there is no motion 

before the court requesting a continuance of pretrial or other deadlines.

Case 2:15-cv-00554-JDW-GMB Document 25 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

DONE this 2nd day of May, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00554-JDW-GMB Document 25 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 4