Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02317/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02317-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Lynne Korff, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Phoenix, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02317-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Defendants’ Joint Rule 30(A)(2)(a)(i) Motion for Leave 

to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit (Doc. 155), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 184), and 

Defendants’ Joint Reply (Doc. 186). 

 The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of proving a particularized 

showing for the need to take three additional depositions. Rule 30, Fed. R. Civ. P. See 

Thykkuttathil v. Keese, 294 F.R.D. 597, 600 (W.D. Wash. 2013). Leave to grant the 

taking of three additional depositions is appropriate pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2), Fed. R. 

Civ. P. The discovery sought is not duplicative, cumulative, or obtainable from another 

source. Defendants promptly sought leave to take the additional depositions upon receipt 

of decedent’s recent mental health records. The expense of the discovery is not 

outweighed by its benefit, considering the importance of the issues at stake and the 

amount in controversy. The information sought is relevant to the subject matter at issue 

in this litigation. The Court has ruled that the events immediately leading up to the 

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 198 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

shooting of the decedent are in dispute. See Orders of the Court dated March 25, 2015 

(Doc. 192) and March 16, 2015 (Doc. 185). Discovery regarding those events is relevant. 

See Boyd v. City & Cnty of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2009); Graham v. 

Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Relevant information need not be admissible at trial to be 

discoverable provided it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Joint Rule 30(A)(2)(a)(i) Motion for 

Leave to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit (Doc. 155). 

 The Court lifts the deposition stay imposed in its Order dated March 9, 2015 (Doc. 

180). 

 Dated this 1st day of April, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 198 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 2