Opinion ID: 2351228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Extent of prejudice to the opposing party

Text: As discussed above, Francis asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege to nearly every question that Wynn posed during his deposition. Thus, Francis's tactics had already resulted in unnecessary expense to Wynn and probable delay in obtaining discovery documents. Wynn would have been further prejudiced if Francis were allowed to withdraw his invocation or reopen discovery because Wynn had been forced to conduct its discovery without the benefit of Francis's deposition. See S.E.C. v. Merrill Scott & Associates, Ltd., 505 F.Supp.2d 1193, 1211 (D.Utah 2007) (prejudice would result if litigant were allowed to withdraw his invocation at the last minute because the opposing party had developed its discovery without first being able to test the defendant's assertions); Softpoint, 958 F.Supp. at 857 (where litigant forced opposing party to bear the cost of a pointless deposition, permitting him to withdraw his privilege and submit an affidavit would result in prejudice because it would effectively ambush his opponent with evidence, defenses, and denials that he concealed until faced with a motion for summary judgment). On balance, the relevant considerations weigh heavily in favor of the remedial measures taken by the district court to balance the parties' competing interests. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Francis to withdraw his invocation or in denying his request to reopen discovery.