Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT SCALPH, et al., Case No. 24-cv-02614-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF DR. 9 v. GREER WALDROP

10 TIMBER PRODUCTS TRUCKING, LLC, Re: ECF No. 58 et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is a discovery letter in which Plaintiffs Scott and Angela Scalph seek a 14 protective order to prevent the second deposition for Dr. Greer Waldrop because Defendants1 did 15 not obtain leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) (providing a party “must obtain leave 16 of court” to conduct a deposition if “the deponent has already been deposed in the case”). 17 Defendants contend that good cause exists to continue Dr. Waldrop’s deposition because Plaintiffs 18 did not adequately disclose information about Dr. Waldrop before the deposition. 19 Defendants’ failure to seek leave by itself compels the granting of Plaintiffs’ request for 20 relief. The language of Rule 30 is mandatory: a party “must” seek leave of Court before 21 conducting a repeat deposition. Id. 22 Nor does the record support a finding of good cause, even if the Court were to reach that 23 question. Defendants note that Dr. Waldrop produced a two-week-old treatment note, which 24 Defendants had not previously seen, during her deposition on May 30, 2025. There is nothing in 25 the record to suggest that Defendants objected to the production at the time of the deposition, and 26 Defendants did not suspend the deposition. In any event, because Defendants did not request any 27 1 discovery from Dr. Waldrop prior to her deposition, there was nothing surprising or improper 2 about her producing a recent treatment note at it. The deposition occurred prior to the close of fact 3 discovery and one month after Defendants learned of Dr. Waldrop’s treatment. Defendants could 4 || have obtained the treatment note (or other records) in advance if they had wanted to. See Thoma 5 || v. City of Spokane, No. 12-cv-0156-EFS, 2014 WL 806053, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2014), 6 aff'd sub nom. Thoma vy. City of Spokane in & for Washington, 696 F. App'x 197 (9th Cir. 2017) 7 (granting motion for protective order where party did not seek leave to re-depose witness and 8 where party issued written discovery with response deadlines after original deposition date). 9 Defendants also take issue with the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ disclosures and suggest that 10 || they are entitled to a second deposition on that ground. As the Court already stated in a recent 11 order, the time for Defendants to bring a motion regarding discovery has passed. “Where the 12 || Court has set separate deadlines for fact and expert discovery, no motions related to fact discovery 5 13 may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off, and no motions related to expert 14 || discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the expert discovery cut-off.” Civ. L.R. 37-3. 3 15 Thus, it is too late to place the alleged deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ disclosures before the Court. And 16 || even if the Court were to consider those alleged deficiencies, that would not give Defendants the 3 17 right to conduct discovery not otherwise permitted by the rules or court order. 18 For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order preventing a second deposition 19 of Dr. Waldrop is granted. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 29, 2025 . .

22 JON S. TIG 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28