Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01255/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01255-4/pdf.json

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

---

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 

Robert D. Maguire, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Cathleen A. Coltrell, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01255-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Robert Maguire has filed a motion for leave to take a trial deposition of 

witness Brian Maguire. Doc. 79. The motion is fully briefed and no party has sought 

oral argument. The Court will grant the motion. 

 The discovery period in this case ended on December 19, 2014. Doc. 11. Trial 

will begin on October 13, 2015. Plaintiff listed Brian Maguire as a witness in the final 

pretrial order (Doc. 73 at 19-20), and has now learned that Brian Maguire must be in 

Singapore on business during the dates of the trial (Doc. 79 at 2). Plaintiff seeks leave to 

conduct a brief telephone deposition to preserve his trial testimony. Defendant argues 

that the deposition should not be permitted because Brian Maguire’s testimony will be 

cumulative and irrelevant and Plaintiff therefore cannot show “compelling circumstances 

that would cause a miscarriage of justice.” Doc. 83 at 4. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 87 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 Some courts have distinguished between trial depositions (sometimes referred to 

as de bene esse depositions) and discovery depositions, holding that discovery deadlines 

apply only to discovery depositions. See, e.g., Estenfelder v. Gates Corp., 199 F.R.D. 

351, 355 (D. Colo. 2001). The Court does not agree with these decisions. The Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure govern deposition practice in federal court, and they make no 

distinction between trial and discovery depositions. As one court has explained: 

 The current version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . 

make no provision or mention whatsoever of depositions de bene esse. 

Once an action has been filed, Rules 30 through 32 recognize a 

“deposition” as a recorded statement of a party or witness that can be used 

by a party for any purpose, whether it be pure discovery, source of 

impeachment, or trial testimony for a case in chief. Rule 27, by contrast, 

codifies a procedure for obtaining a deposition before litigation ensues to 

obtain discovery necessary to ascertain facts for use in a later-filed action. 

But other than this unique and rarely-used rule, a “deposition” taken once 

an action has commenced has but one meaning and definition: a deposition 

as a discovery device under Rule 30. 

Smith v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 302 F.R.D. 688, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2014). 

 Many other courts agree. See, e.g., Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 

1358, 1362 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2002) (“The district court’s identical treatment (for timing 

purposes) of discovery and de bene esse depositions is consistent with the language of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which draw no distinction between the two.”); Smith, 

302 F.R.D. at 690; White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. CIVS06-0665 WBS GGH, 2010 

WL 2557198, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2010) (“Plaintiff’s assumption that de bene esse

depositions, essentially trial depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 32(a)(4), are not 

governed by scheduling orders is erroneous.”); Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck 

KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556, 558 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do 

not distinguish between depositions taken for discovery purposes and those taken strictly 

to perpetuate testimony for presentation at trial.”); Henkel v. XIM Products, Inc., 133 

F.R.D. 556, 557 (D. Minn. 1991) (“Neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Rules of 

Evidence make any distinction between discovery depositions and depositions for use at 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 87 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

trial.”). 

 Because there is no distinction between trial and discovery depositions, the 

deposition of Brian Maguire is governed by the Court’s case management order and 

should have been taken before December 19, 2014. Rule 16 provides, however, that 

deadlines established in a case management order may be modified “for good cause[.]” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met 

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory 

Comm. Note (1983 Am.). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers 

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 

1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 Plaintiff could have deposed Brian Maguire during the discovery period, 

preserving his testimony for trial, but Plaintiff explains that he expected Brian—who is 

his brother—to be available to testify at trial. Plaintiff did not foresee that Brian would 

be required by his business to be in Singapore during the trial. 

 Defendant does not argue that Plaintiff failed to act diligently. She argues instead 

that Brian Maguire’s testimony would be cumulative and irrelevant, and that Plaintiff 

therefore cannot show that taking his deposition is required by compelling circumstances 

to avoid manifest injustice. 

 The Court concludes that the appropriate test in this case is good cause under 

Rule 16(b)(4). Plaintiff does not seek to modify the final pretrial order, which would be 

permitted “only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Brian Maguire and 

the substance of his proposed testimony were included in the final pretrial order. Doc. 73 

at 19-20. Plaintiff instead seeks to extend the deposition deadline, which requires good 

cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court concludes that Brian Maguire’s unexpected 

unavailability satisfies the good cause standard, and will permit the telephone deposition. 

The Court will rule on Defendant’s relevancy and cumulative-evidence objections at trial. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 87 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to take a trial deposition of 

Brian Maguire (Doc. 79) is granted. The parties shall agree upon a convenient time for 

the deposition before trial. 

 Dated this 29th day of September, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01255-DGC Document 87 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 4