Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01412/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01412-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE ESTATE OF RUBEN NUNEZ, 

by and through its successor-ininterest LYDIA NUNEZ, ALBERT 

NUNEZ, and LYDIA NUNEZ, 

 Plaintiffs,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 

Defendants, Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v. 

CORRECTIONAL PHYSICIANS 

MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., 

 Third-Party Defendants. 

Case No.: 16cv1412-BEN-MDD 

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING NUMBER OF 

DEPOSITIONS 

 

[ECF NO. 96] 

 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of 

Discovery Dispute Regarding Number of Depositions filed on May 8, 2017. 

(ECF No. 96). The joint motion presents Plaintiffs’ motion for leave of court 

to take up to 25 depositions in this case. Defendants oppose on the grounds 

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 101 Filed 05/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

that Plaintiffs have not exhausted their allotted 10 depositions, have made 

an insufficient showing of the need to take additional depositions at this time 

and that Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity through the Rule 26(f) 

process and several discovery conferences with the Court to raise the issue 

with Defendants and with the Court. As discussed below, the instant motion 

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

BACKGROUND 

 On June 8, 2016, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint 

against Defendants alleging several causes of action regarding the in-custody 

death of Ruben Nunez. (ECF No. 1). The current operative complaint is the 

First Amended Complaint, filed on August 30, 2016, which alleges twelve 

causes of action including: (1) Violation of Due Process (42 U.S.C. §1983); (2) 

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs (42 U.S.C. §1983); (3) 

Wrongful Death (42 U.S.C. §1983); (4) Right of Association (42 U.S.C. §1983); 

(5) Failure to Properly Train (42 U.S.C. §1983); (6) Failure to Properly 

Supervise and Discipline (42 U.S.C. §1983); (7) Failure to Properly 

Investigate (42 U.S.C. §1983); (8) Monell (42 U.S.C. §1983); (9) Wrongful 

Death (CCP § 377.60); (10) Negligence; (11) Violation of 42 U.S.C. §12132; 

and (12) Violation of 29 U.S.C. §794(a). (ECF No. 15). A motion to dismiss 

certain State defendants is pending but the outcome of that motion does not 

impact the instant motion. (See ECF No. 41). On December 12, 2016, 

Defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against Correctional Physicians 

Medical Group, Inc., (“CPMG”) and certain individuals, alleging, among other 

things, that a contract between the County and CPMG may provide for 

indemnity. (ECF No. 43). 

 

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 101 Filed 05/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

LEGAL STANDARD 

Absent stipulation, a party must obtain leave of court to take a 

deposition which would result in more than 10 depositions being taken by a 

party. Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i), Fed. R. Civ. P. A court must grant such leave to 

the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1), 

in particular, provides: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 

is 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. 

Under Rule 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties are required to confer as soon as 

practicable, and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference 

is to be held, and develop a discovery plan. Among other things, the 

discovery plan must address changes that should be made in the limitations 

on discovery imposed by the federal rules or local rules. Rule 26(f)(3)(E). In 

this Court, pursuant to Chambers rules, the joint discovery plan is required 

to be lodged no later than 7 days before the Early Neutral Evaluation/Case 

Management Conference. Dembin Chambers Rules III.A.3. 

DISCUSSION

 In the Joint Discovery Plan submitted by the parties to this Court on 

September 22, 2016, the parties stated: “Discovery should be conducted in 

accordance with the limitations imposed by the discovery rules of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. There are no changes or limitations on discovery 

that are required in this case.” At that time, the Complaint named seven 

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 101 Filed 05/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

Defendants including one entity and six individuals. (ECF No. 1). If 

Plaintiffs intended to depose all of the Defendants, only three non-defendant 

deposition spots were available. Even at that early stage of this litigation, it 

should have been obvious to Plaintiffs that the 10-deposition limit of the 

Federal Rules may not be sufficient to their needs or desires. The issue was 

not raised with the Court, nor, apparently, with Defendants. 

 The operative First Amended Complaint, filed on August 30, 2016, 

added a second entity and two additional individuals. (ECF No. 15). 

Deposing each Defendant would reach the 10 deposition limit of Rule 30. A 

Third-Party Complaint was filed on December 12, 2016, adding an entity and 

two individuals as Third-Party Defendants. (ECF No. 43). On December 20, 

2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF 

No. 46). No issue was raised by Plaintiffs regarding the limit on number of 

depositions. The Court hosted four telephonic discovery conferences in which 

the status of scheduled depositions was discussed because of the addition of 

the third-party Defendants and a change in counsel by a third-party 

Defendant. The conferences were held on February 27, March 13, March 20 

and April 6, 2017. (ECF Nos. 70, 76, 79, 91). The number of depositions was 

not raised. On April 14, 2017, as discussed in the conference on April 6, the 

parties filed a second Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF 

No. 94). The status of depositions was one of the subjects of the Joint Motion 

but, again, the number of depositions was not raised by Plaintiffs. 

 In the Joint Motion, Plaintiffs identify 19 depositions they would like to 

take. Nine are Defendants (including two of entities to be deposed pursuant 

to Rule 30(b)(6)) and two are third-party Defendants. The remainder are 

identified as percipient witnesses but without explanatory details. Plaintiffs 

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 101 Filed 05/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

16cv1412-BEN-MDD

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

also seek leave to take up to six more depositions of unidentified persons. At 

the time the Joint Motion was filed, Plaintiffs had not taken a single 

deposition. The Court is aware, however, that following the filing of the 

instant Motion, depositions have been taken of certain witnesses and 

Defendants associated with Patton State Hospital. 

 The Court is not convinced that additional depositions should be 

authorized at this time over the objection of the Defendants. Considering 

Rule 26(b)(1), there has been no showing of the importance of the non-party 

witnesses in resolving issues nor the extent to which the information that 

each may possess is unique and non-cumulative. At this point, the Court 

cannot say that the burden and expense of the additional depositions 

outweighs any likely benefit. 

 Plaintiffs also have provided no justification for not raising the issue of 

the deposition limit earlier despite the repeated opportunities to do so 

recounted above. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs should 

exhaust their allotted 10 depositions before seeking leave of Court to 

schedule further depositions. The Court suggests that Plaintiffs choose their 

deponents wisely. 

CONCLUSION

 Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to take additional depositions, as presented 

in the instant Joint Motion, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01412-BEN-MDD Document 101 Filed 05/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5