Michael Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: April 13, 2026
• Docket: 0:25-cv-00213
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Michael Fiorito, Case No. 25-cv-213 (DSD/DJF)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Metropolitan Council,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Fiorito’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Fact Deposition Limit (ECF No. 151) (“Motion”). The Pretrial Scheduling Order limits Mr. Fiorito to six fact depositions. (ECF No. 175 at 2.) The Motion asks the Court to increase the limit to fifteen. When a party seeks leave to alter the number of depositions he may take, he “must make a particularized showing of why the discovery is necessary.” Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc. of Minn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999) (citing Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 271 (8th Cir. 1996)). Mr. Fiorito states he needs more than six fact depositions because, through discovery, he has identified at least six witnesses who might have relevant information. (ECF No. 152 at 1-3.) Defendant Metropolitan Council opposes the Motion on the grounds that: (1.) Mr. Fiorito has failed to take a single deposition to date; (2.) he has failed to explain why he needs information from witnesses who would provide duplicative information; and (3.) his request is futile because he has repeatedly stated that he lacks the ability to pay for any depositions. (ECF No. 168.) The Court DENIES the Motion. Since Mr. Fiorito has not taken any of his six allotted depositions, he has failed to show why he needs an increased deposition limit. See Archer Daniels Midland Co., 187 F.R.D. at 587 (denying motion to increase number of depositions in part because moving party had failed to take any). Until Mr. Fiorito exhausts or nearly exhausts his quota, he cannot show that he needs more than what has already been allotted. If he does approach the limit, he may seek leave to increase it, but his motion must state exactly how many more individuals he wishes to depose, describe their expected testimony, and explain why those individuals have information that is both relevant and non-duplicative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2026 s/ Dulce J. Foster Dulce J. Foster United States Magistrate Judge