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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MEGAN M. HOWARD and CHRISTOPHER

S. HOWARD, individually and on behalf of

their marital community,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5768 RJB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Additional

Depositions (Dkt. 34-1). The court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition

to the motion and the file herein.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

The complaint alleges that plaintiff Megan Howard suffered permanent injuries as a result of a

surgical operation at the Bremerton Naval Hospital. Dkt. 1 at 6-7. The plaintiffs bring suit against the

United States in federal court pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(b) et seq.

On September 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to take depositions in

excess of the ten provided for in the Federal Rule 30(a)(2)(A). Dkt. 34-1 at 1. Specifically, the

plaintiffs seek to take five to ten additional depositions. Dkt. 35 at 4. The defendant asks the court to

deny the motion as moot on the grounds that before the plaintiffs filed this motion, the defendant

Case 3:05-cv-05768-RJB Document 44 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 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

ORDER

Page - 2

provided written stipulation to the plaintiffs taking ten additional depositions. See Dkt. 36 at 22-23.

The plaintiffs maintain that the defendant’s consent was only partial because the stipulation contained

various conditions. Dkt. 39 at 2. 

Federal Rule 30 requires that parties seeking to take more than ten depositions either seek

leave of court or written stipulation from opposing counsel:

A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the

principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if the person to be examined is confined in prison or if,

without the written stipulation of the parties,

(A) a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Here, the defendant provided written stipulation to the

plaintiffs taking ten additional depositions but retained the right to oppose the scheduling or noticing

of such depositions, to file protective orders, to request amendment of the case schedule, and any

other rights to which it may be entitled. Dkt. 36, Exh. 4 at 23. The plaintiffs believe this stipulation to

be insufficient because they have not had an opportunity to discuss the defendant’s conditions. Dkt. 39

at 2. In the interest of efficiency and providing clarity to both parties, the motion for leave should be

granted without prejudice to the defendant’s right to move for the type of relief enumerated in the

proposed stipulation. See Dkt. 36, Exh. 4 at 23. This order does not affect the case scheduling, and all

deadlines will remain in full force and effect. See Dkt. 11, 27.

The plaintiffs have previously moved for relief related to discovery in this case. See Dkt. 13,

22. In the court’s order on those motions, the court “reaffirm[ed] its instructions that the parties meet

and confer, attempt to work out these issues in good faith, and use conference calls to chambers

before filing further discovery motions.” Dkt. 29 at 4. Counsel for both parties are again strongly

encouraged to resolve these issues by agreement and stipulation to avoid unnecessary burden and

expense to the court and to their clients in this matter.

Case 3:05-cv-05768-RJB Document 44 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 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

ORDER

Page - 3

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depositions (Dkt. 34-1) is

GRANTED, and the plaintiffs may conduct no more than ten depositions in excess of the ten allowed

under Federal Rule 30(a)(2)(A).

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05768-RJB Document 44 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3