Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PAYCARGO FINANCE LP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant, 

BAY MARITIMES INC., 

Nominal Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:22-cv-22707

DEFENDANT ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO TAKE SUPPLEMENTAL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFF

Defendant, Aspen American Insurance Company (“Aspen”), pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 30 and 37, files this, its Motion for Leave to Take Supplemental Deposition 

Testimony from Plaintiff, PayCargo Finance LP (“PCF”), and states in support hereof: 

1. Aspen brings the instant Motion for two reasons. First, because PCF’s corporate 

representative was unable to testify at a deposition regarding topics that were properly noticed by 

Aspen for the deposition. Second, because PCF produced documents after the deposition 

pertaining to PCF’s alleged damages that Aspen did not have the opportunity to inquire about at 

the deposition. 

2. On or about May 22, 2023, Aspen noticed the deposition of PCF’s corporate 

representative in this matter. A true and correct copy of the deposition notice is attached hereto as 

Exhibit “A”. 

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), in the Notice, Aspen 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

expressly informed PCF that among the topics for the deposition would be PCF’s alleged damages 

and how the alleged damages amount was calculated.

4. On June 8, 2023, Aspen took the deposition of PCF’s corporate representative.

A true and correct copy of relevant excerpts from the deposition transcript (“Depo. Transcript”) is 

attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 

5. PCF’s deposition testimony was deficient because PCF’s corporate representative 

was unable to testify fully regarding the noticed topics. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) (“The 

persons designated [to testify for the organization at a deposition] must testify about information 

known or reasonably available to the organization.”). Specifically, PCF’s designated corporate 

representative was unable to answer several specific questions about PCF’s alleged damages 

accounting and indicated that he would have to “validate” the answers to the questions and check 

with the “accounting department”. See Depo. Transcript pg. 66 line 25; pg. 67 lines 1-6, 24-25; 

pg. 68 lines 2-3, 14-18; pg. 72 lines 11-25; pg. 73 lines 1-2, 23-25; pg. 74 lines 1-3; pg. 76 lines 

6-12. Consequently, Aspen could not question PCF fully about its alleged damages.1

6. Aspen made a good faith effort to resolve the deficiencies in PCF’s deposition 

testimony without having to involve the Court. On June 13, 2023, Aspen sent PCF good faith 

correspondence requesting, among other things, that PCF provide a supplemental interrogatory 

answer that explained, by transaction, how the amount of its alleged damages was calculated and 

provide a full accounting of its alleged damages in this matter. Aspen further notified PCF that if 

1 Following the deposition, and from subsequent conversations with PCF’s counsel, Aspen 

also learned that PCF’s document production in this matter in response to Aspen’s discovery 

requests was deficient. At present, Aspen is working with PCF to resolve the deficiencies in PCF’s 

document production without the need for Court intervention. However, in the event PCF fails to 

provide the documents, Aspen expressly reserves the right to file a motion to compel PCF to 

provide complete disclosures, and nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver or limitation of 

Aspen’s right to do so. 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

PCF did not provide such a supplemental interrogatory answer, Aspen could be forced to take an 

additional deposition of PCF’s corporate representative. A true and correct copy of the good faith 

correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.

7. Counsel for Aspen also spoke by telephone with counsel for PCF regarding the 

good faith correspondence and the request for a supplemental interrogatory answer or, 

alternatively, supplemental deposition testimony. 

8. Finally, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline [ECF No. 

39], which is currently pending, requesting that the Court extend the discovery deadline to July 

11, 2023, in this matter, in part to allow PCF additional time to supplement its discovery responses. 

9. Despite Aspen’s good faith efforts to resolve this issue, to date, PCF has not 

provided a supplemental interrogatory answer or agreed to allow Aspen to take supplemental 

deposition testimony from its corporate representative. 

10. However, PCF did provide, on July 3, 2023, an accounting of its alleged damages 

that differs materially from PCF’s prior statements regarding its alleged damages. Notably, PCF’s 

accounting spreadsheet includes transactions never previously identified by PCF that PCF is now 

apparently claiming are part of its alleged damages. No information regarding these transactions 

was ever provided to Aspen prior to or during the deposition of PCF’s corporate representative. 

11. PCF’s failure to cure the deficiencies in its deposition testimony, and its production 

of a previously undisclosed and materially different accounting of its alleged damages, have left 

Aspen with no choice but to file the instant Motion and ask the Court to allow Aspen to take 

additional deposition testimony from PCF. 

12. Good cause exists to grant the relief sought herein. Aspen will be prejudiced if it is 

denied the opportunity to take additional deposition testimony to inquire as to the information 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

PCF’s representative failed to provide at the first deposition regarding PCF’s damages, and as to 

PCF’s materially changed accounting of its alleged damages. 

13. Moreover, this Motion is not brought to delay this matter, is filed in good faith, and 

no party will suffer any prejudice from the relief requested. 

14. Therefore, Aspen respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting Aspen 

leave to take supplemental deposition testimony from PCF’s corporate representative. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) provides that “[a] party must obtain leave of court, 

and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) ... if the parties 

have not stipulated to the deposition and . . . the deponent has already been deposed in the case.” 

Upon a showing of good cause, a court should allow a party to take additional deposition 

testimony. See, e.g., Arugu v. City of Plantation, No. 09-61618-CIV, 2010 WL 2609394, at *3 

(M.D. Fla. June 27, 2010). 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Aspen American Insurance Company, respectfully request that 

the Court enter an Order: (a) granting the instant Motion; (b) allowing Aspen leave to take a 

supplemental corporate representative deposition of Plaintiff, on or before August 1, 2023; and, 

(c) granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: July 6, 2023. 

GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(3)

I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred with all parties who may be 

affected by the relief sought in the Motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the 

Motion and has been unable to do so. In addition to the efforts described above in the Motion, 

counsel for Aspen reached out to opposing counsel via email on July 5, 2023, and attempted to 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

contact opposing counsel by telephone on July 6, 2023, both in an effort to resolve the issues raised 

in the Motion, to no avail. 

Respectfully submitted,

GURLEY & ASSOCIATES 

/s/ Michael A. Fant 

David E. Gurley (Fla. Bar No.: 0402214) 

dgurley@gurleyassociates.com 

Michael A. Fant (Fla Bar No.: 0100713) 

mfant@gurleyassociates.com

601 South Osprey Avenue 

Sarasota, FL 34236 

Telephone: (941) 365-4501 

Facsimile: (941) 365-2916 

eservice@gurleyassociates.com

Counsel for Defendant, Aspen American Insurance 

Company 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 6, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic 

filing to all counsel of record. 

GURLEY & ASSOCIATES 

/s/ Michael A. Fant 

David E. Gurley (Fla. Bar No.: 0402214) 

dgurley@gurleyassociates.com 

Michael A. Fant (Fla Bar No.: 0100713) 

mfant@gurleyassociates.com

601 South Osprey Avenue 

Sarasota, FL 34236 

Telephone: (941) 365-4501 

Facsimile: (941) 365-2916 

eservice@gurleyassociates.com

Counsel for Defendant, Aspen American Insurance 

Company 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 5 of 5