The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
On October 4, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Modify the Court's August 22, 2007 Scheduling Order (Doc. 353). (Doc. 368). By Order of October 5, 2007, the Court granted the stated Motion and directed that "[t]he supplemental Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff Municipal Revenue Services, Inc., may take place after October 15, 2007, but shall take place within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the depositions of the two Montgomery County Commissioners whose depositions are the subject of a current appeal to United States District Court Judge Jones." (Doc. 370, ¶ 3.).
Thus, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Modify and allowed the supplemental Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff MRS to be conducted within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the depositions of the two Montgomery County Commissioners. These depositions are the only remaining discovery matters that have been allowed by the Court. No date for Plaintiff's depositions of the Montgomery County Commissioners has been scheduled, since Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the District Court's Order disqualifying Plaintiff's present counsel from conducting the stated depositions. (Doc. 387). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is currently pending before the District Court.
On April 4, 2008, Plaintiff Municipal Revenue Services, Inc. ("MRS"), one-half year after the close of discovery for all matters except for its supplemental Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition and the depositions of the two Montgomery County Commissioners, filed a Motion for Leave to Issue a Subpoena to non-party JP Morgan Chase & Co. ("JPMC"). (Doc. 393).*fn1 The discovery deadline for all other matters has passed six months ago, on October 15, 2007.
Plaintiff attached two exhibits (Exs. 1 and 2) to its present Motion and simultaneously filed its support Brief with Ex. A, an unpublished 1991 Eastern District of Pennsylvania Memorandum and Order dealing with the modification of a discovery deadline upon a showing of good cause. AAMCO Trans., Inc. v. Marino, 1991 WL 40336 (E.D. Pa.). (Doc. 394). Defendants Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. ("BSC") and Xspand, Inc. ("Xspand") jointly filed their Brief in opposition to Plaintiff's April 4, 2008 Motion. (Doc. 395). Plaintiff filed its Reply Brief on April 8, 2008. (Doc. 396). Subsequently, Defendants requested permission to file a Sur-reply brief, and the Court allowed them to do so. (Docs. 397 and 398). Defendants' Sur-reply Brief was filed on April 14, 2008. (Doc. 399). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Issue a Subpoena to non-party JPMC is currently ripe for disposition. (Doc. 393).*fn2 Plaintiff seeks both documents and a Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition from JPMC.
As the Court stated in Korescko v. Bleiweis, 2004 WL 2005785, * 1 (E.D. Pa.):
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are liberal with respect to discovery, permitting the requesting party to obtain even inadmissible material, as long as it is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, unprivileged, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
In Paluch v. Dawson, 2007 WL 4375937, * 1 (M.D. Pa.), the Court stated:
Generally, courts afford considerable latitude in discovery in order to ensure that litigation proceeds with the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). The polestar of discovery is relevance. Relevance for discovery purposes is defined broadly. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery "regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense .... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). "[A]ll relevant material is discoverable unless an applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted.
The presumption that such matter is discoverable, however, is defeasible." Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir.2000). Rule 26(b)(2) authorizes a court to limit discovery where (I) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount ...