Opinion
8:20-cv-2300-JSS
02-27-2023
DARTANYA L. HAUSBURG, Plaintiff, v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, Defendant.
ORDER
JULIE S. SNEED, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff moves the court to compel Defendant to produce two witnesses for deposition and for an order to show cause why two additional witnesses should not be held in contempt for failing to appear at their scheduled depositions. (Plaintiff's Motions, Dkt. 78.) Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motions. (Dkt. 86.) Defendant also moves for a continuance of the February 28, 2023 dispositive motion deadline pending the court's resolution of Plaintiff's Motions. (Defendant's Motion, Dkt. 82.) Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion. (Dkt. 87.) The court held a hearing on the motions on February 24, 2023. (Dkt. 88.)
Upon consideration and for the reasons stated at the hearing:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 78) is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part. Defendant is directed to produce Dr. Jennifer Tordilla-Wadia for deposition to be scheduled by the parties. Dr. Tordilla-Wadia's deposition will be for purposes of trial in this matter, rather than for dispositive motions. Plaintiff's request to compel Defendant to produce a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witness for deposition regarding backpay is denied without prejudice as Defendant represented that it could not produce a witness to testify on that topic, the information was properly sought through another Government agency, and the information sought is largely cumulative of other evidence in the record. See Rollins v. Cone Distrib., Inc., 710 Fed.Appx. 814, 820 (11th Cir. 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied second deposition of party's corporate representative that “would have been duplicative or cumulative of other evidence in the record”).
2. Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Certain Witnesses Should Not Be Held in Contempt (Dkt. 78) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff agreed that the information sought through these depositions is cumulative of other evidence in the record. Further, Defendant represented at the hearing that it had no intention of calling either witness at trial. See Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Where a significant amount of discovery has been obtained, and it appears that further discovery would not be helpful in resolving the issues, a request for further discovery is properly denied.”) (quoting Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1580 (11th Cir. 1991)).
3. Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Dispositive Motion Deadline (Dkt. 82) is DENIED.
ORDERED.