Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01591/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tina Diaz,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. S. & W. Contractors, Inc.,

Defendant. 

No. CV 10-1591-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery to take the

deposition of Fernando Flores. In this case, Plaintiff is suing for sexual harassment. 

Many of Plaintiff’s claims arise from actions allegedly taken by Flores. The parties did

not take Mr. Flores’ deposition within the original discovery deadline because they were

unable to locate him. Defendant seeks to take Mr. Flores’ video-taped deposition in

Mexico.

Plaintiff objects to taking of Mr. Flores deposition of several grounds: 1) this Court

has no jurisdiction in Mexico; 2) Plaintiff’s counsel does not have a passport that would

allow him to travel to Mexico; 3) Chihuahua, Mexico is too dangerous for the Court to

order the parties to travel there; 4) Mr. Flores appeared at Plaintiff’s house after she quit

working for Defendant and she had to obtain an Order of Protection against him, so she

does not want to travel to Mexico where Mr. Flores might again harass her; and 5)

because deposing Mr. Flores would cause Plaintiff to need to do some additional

discovery of her own, the Court should not permit the deposition because it would delay

the resolution of this case.

Case 2:10-cv-01591-JAT Document 34 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Without considering Plaintiff’s objections numbered 2, 3, and 4, which raise

legitimate concerns, the Court will deny the motion based on objections 1 and 5. First,

Plaintiff is correct that this Court has no jurisdiction in Mexico. Further, the appropriate

procedure for this Court to seek testimony from a witness outside this Court’s

jurisdiction is a letter rogatory. 23 Am. Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 17; see

also In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Washington, 634 F.3d 557

(9th Cir. 2011). Defendant has not sought a letter rogatory and the Court has no reason

to believe this procedure could be accomplished within the current trial schedule. Thus,

because this Court does not have jurisdiction to hold a person to their oath in Mexico,

and because there is not adequate time for either Plaintiff or Defendant to complete

additional discovery in Mexico within the current trial schedule,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery (Doc. 31) is

denied.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01591-JAT Document 34 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 2