Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03577/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03577-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

ALABAMA AIRCRAFT 

INDUSTRIES, INC., ALABAMA 

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. - 

BIRMINGHAM, AND PEMCO 

AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING 

SERVICES, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 

v. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP 

 

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

BOEING AEROSPACE 

OPERATIONS, INC. AND BOEING 

AEROSPACE SUPPORT 

CENTER, 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Special Master is AAI’s “Motion for Additional Time to 

Complete Cross-Examination of Glenn Hess” (“the Motion” or “AAI’s 

Motion”), which was filed with the Special Master on November 23, 2015. 

The Motion has since been fully briefed, with Boeing submitting a 

Response on December 7, 2015 (“Boeing’s Response”) and AAI submitted 

a Reply on December 14, 2015 (“AAI’s Reply”). For the reasons explained 

below, it is the recommendation of the Special Master that AAI’s Motion be 

GRANTED. 

FILED

 2015 Dec-22 PM 02:45

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 8
2 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 26, 2015, Boeing issued a Notice of Deposition for 

Glenn Hess, which scheduled the deposition for 9:00AM on November 19, 

2015. AAI’s Motion, Ex. A (“Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Glenn 

Hess”). Now retired, Mr. Hess had previously served as the president of a 

Pemco subsidiary during the relevant underlying time period. AAI’s Motion 

at 1; Boeing’s Response at 2. 

2. On November 11, 2015, AAI issued a Notice of CrossExamination. AAI’s Motion, Exhibit B (“Plaintiffs’ Cross-Notice of Video 

Deposition of Glenn Hess”). 

3. On November 13, 2015, AAI notified Boeing by email that it 

anticipated needing two-and-a-half hours for its cross-examination of Mr. 

Hess. AAI’s Motion, Exhibit C. 

4. As scheduled, the deposition of Mr. Hess took place on 

November 19, 2015; however, it began nearly an hour late at 9:54AM, due 

to the delayed arrival of a videographer. AAI’s Motion at 3; Boeing’s 

Response at 2, n.1. 

5. Boeing proceeded to depose Mr. Hess for approximately fiveand-a-half hours, finishing at 4:35PM. AAI’s Motion at 4; Boeing’s 

Response at 2. 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 8
3 

6. Because of a previously scheduled engagement, Mr. Hess had 

to leave the deposition by 5:30PM, giving AAI approximately fifty-five 

minutes to conduct its cross-examination. AAI’s Motion at 3-4; Boeing’s 

Response at 2. 

7. Before beginning its cross-examination, AAI noted on the 

record that it intended to seek additional time to complete its crossexamination. AAI’s Motion, Exhibit D at 289-290. Boeing subsequently 

noted its opposition to AAI’s plan. AAI’s Motion, Exhibit D at 290. 

8. AAI deposed Mr. Hess for approximately fifty-five minutes. 

AAI’s Motion at 4; Boeing’s Response at 2. 

9. On November 23, 2015, AAI officially moved for additional time 

to complete its cross-examination of Mr. Hess, filing its Motion with the 

Special Master. AAI’s Motion seeks an additional one-and-a-half hours of 

deposition testimony from Mr. Hess, to be construed as an extension of 

AAI’s cross-examination. AAI’s Motion at 6; AAI’s Reply at 1. Boeing, in 

contrast, argues that any additional examination of Mr. Hess should be 

deemed an independent deposition and count towards AAI’s fifteendeposition allotment. Boeing’s Response at 3. 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 8
4 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

For the reasons outlined below, it is the undersigned’s legal 

conclusion that AAI should be permitted to depose Mr. Hess for the 

requested period of additional time and that such additional time should be 

construed as a continuation of AAI’s cross-examination of Mr. Hess. 

A. Requested Amount of Additional Deposition Time Is 

Reasonable

In its Motion, AAI seeks an additional one-and-a-half hours to 

complete its cross-examination of Mr. Hess, a request which—in spite of 

the slight burden it may cause in requiring the deponent and counsel for 

both parties to reconvene in Tampa, Florida—is eminently reasonable for 

numerous reasons. AAI’s Motion at 6; AAI’s Reply at 1. 

First, AAI’s request is reasonable because it seeks to meet—not 

exceed—AAI’s initial estimate of necessary deposition time (i.e., two-and-ahalf hours). AAI’s Motion, Exhibit C. Indeed, in requesting only one-and-ahalf hours of additional deposition time, it is clear that AAI is seeking to 

keep its additional examination time within the confines of its initial estimate 

(which it was not required to provide and by which it is not required to 

abide), a display of restraint that speaks to the reasonableness of the 

request. 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

Likewise, AAI’s request is reasonable because it would only push the 

total deposition time to eight (8) hours (approximately five-and-a-half hours 

of direct examination by Boeing and two-and-a-half hours of crossexamination by AAI), exceeding by just one (1) hour the seven (7) hour limit 

presumed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and explicitly 

applied to this case by Judge Proctor. Rule 30(d)(1); November 20, 2014 

Hearing Transcript at 71-72. Granted, it appears to be the expectation of 

the Court that fact witnesses will only be subjected to a single day of 

questioning, but a discretionary departure from that standard seems 

warranted in this case, as forces outside of the parties’ control (i.e., the 

videographer’s tardiness and the deponent’s truncated availability) 

conspired to prevent the completion of the deposition in one day. AAI’s 

Motion at 3; Boeing’s Response at 2. 

Finally, AAI’s requested period of additional time is reasonable when 

viewed in concert with both the liberal nature of discovery under the 

Federal Rules and the undersigned’s previous assurances that the parties’ 

would be given sufficient opportunity for cross-examination. FRCP 26(b)(1); 

FRCP 30(d)(1) (“The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 

26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, 

another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

examination.”); Doc. 169 at 9, n.3 (“[T]he party defending a deposition will 

always be afforded the opportunity to reasonably cross examine the 

deponent, even in those situations where the deposing party had made full 

use of the seven (7) hour maximum established by Judge Proctor.”). 

B. Additional Deposition Time Is An Extension of AAI’s CrossExamination

Given the aforementioned reasons, it seems clear that AAI’s request 

for additional deposition time is reasonable and should be granted; 

however, the question remains whether such time should be construed as 

an independent deposition (as argued by Boeing) or considered an 

extension of AAI’s prior cross-examination (as argued by AAI). Boeing’s 

Response at 1 (“AAI has already cross-examined Mr. Hess on the topics of 

Boeing’s examination, and AAI’s motion makes clear that it now wants to 

move beyond mere cross-examination of Mr. Hess. For that reason, AAI’s 

deposition of Mr. Hess should count against AAI’s fifteen-deposition limit.”); 

AAI’s Reply at 6 (“AAI’s cross-examination is not required to be limited only 

to the subjects covered in Boeing’s initial examination, and thus AAI’s full 

and reasonable cross-examination – on any discoverable topic in this case 

– does not constitute a new and independent deposition taken by AAI.”). 

Although the Federal Rules note that “[t]he examination and crossexamination of a deponent [shall] proceed as they would at trial,” FRCP 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

30(c)(1) (emphasis added), the language of the Rules is slightly misleading; 

indeed, it is well-established that the scope of cross-examination at 

deposition “is not limited to the issues raised in direct examination,” as it 

would be in a trial setting. See, e.g., F.C.C. v. Mizuho Medy Co. Ltd., 257 

F.R.D. 679, 682 (S.D. Cal. 2009); cf., Rule 611(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence (“Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of 

the direct examination . . .”). As such, the crux of Boeing’s argument 

against construing AAI’s additional examination of Mr. Hess as an 

extension of AAI’s cross-examination is without force, and the undersigned 

concludes that AAI should not be required to use one of its fifteen (15) 

allotted depositions in connection with its continued questioning of Mr. 

Hess. 

However, in order to alleviate any lingering concerns harbored by 

Boeing about the scope of AAI’s cross-examination, the undersigned 

recommends that Boeing be allowed one (1) hour of additional 

examination, so as to provide it with an opportunity to address any topics 

that may arise for the first time in the course of AAI’s cross-examination. 

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned makes the following 

recommendations to the Court: 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 7 of 8
8 

 AAI’s Motion should be GRANTED. AAI should be permitted to 

continue its cross-examination of Mr. Hess for one-and-a-half 

hours, and, if necessary, Boeing may follow with up to one hour 

of re-direct examination. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

s/David J. Middlebrooks 

David J. Middlebrooks ASB- 8553-D58D 

OF COUNSEL: 

LEHR MIDDLEBROOKS VREELAND 

 & THOMPSON, P.C. 

P.O. Box 11945 

Birmingham, Alabama 35202-1945 

(205) 326-3002 

Fax: (205) 326-3008 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 22, 2015, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will 

send notification of such filing to the following: 

s/David J. Middlebrooks 

OF COUNSEL 

504412 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 176 Filed 12/22/15 Page 8 of 8