Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Lake County

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

November 16, 2016

ESTATE OF CEDELL WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Additional Discovery [DE 110], filed by Plaintiff on July 21, 2016. Plaintiff asks the Court to grant it leave to conduct 13 additional depositions. On August 8, 2016, Defendants filed a response [DE 114] opposing the Motion, and on August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply [DE 115].

         I. Background

         On December 6, 2013, the parties filed a Report of Parties' 26(f) Planning Meeting [DE 25]. In that report, the parties asked the Court to limit the parties to 8 depositions each. The Court adopted the parties' proposed discovery report, but stated that “Depositions maximums will be 16 for each side.” [DE 26]. The parties apparently believe that Plaintiff is nonetheless limited to 8 depositions. As a result, the Court will address the merits of the parties' arguments.

         Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to conduct 13 additional depositions. The proposed depositions include parties and party representatives, as well as individuals who might have information relevant to this case.

         II. Standard

         Where the parties have not stipulated to additional depositions, a party must obtain leave of Court to conduct additional depositions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). A party objecting to a discovery request bears the burden of showing why the request is improper, McGrath v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 625 F.Supp.2d 660, 670 (N.D. Ind. 2008), and the Court has broad discretion when deciding discovery matters. Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc'y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Eng'rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d 1100, 1110 (7th Cir. 1993).

         II. Analysis

         Because Defendants' objections vary for each potential deponent, the Court will address each proposed deponent in turn.

         A. Dr. John Cavanaugh and Dr. William Forgey

         Plaintiff wishes to depose Dr. William Forgey, who is a party in this case, and Dr. John Cavanaugh. Defendants do not object to these depositions. Accordingly, Plaintiff may take the depositions of Dr. Cavanaugh and Dr. Forgey.

         B. Timm Todd

         Plaintiff also wishes to depose Tim Todd. However, Mr. Todd died. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to depose Mr. Todd is moot.

         Plaintiff states it has not confirmed Mr. Todd's death. If Plaintiff finds that Mr. Todd is in fact alive, it may file ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.