Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Dull v. West Manchester Township Police Dep't

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 17, 2008

DONNA DULL AND HOLLY DULL, PLAINTIFFS
v.
WEST MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2008, upon consideration of the telephone conference held with counsel for plaintiff Donna Dull and for the West Manchester Township defendants*fn1 on June 9, 2008, of the original and amended complaints (Doc. 1, 57) and answer (Doc. 62) to the latter, and of the submissions of counsel, (Doc. 67, 68), which request leave of court to conduct a second, limited deposition of plaintiff Donna Dull, see (Doc. 67 at 1); FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring leave of court to conduct multiple depositions of a single individual unless the parties stipulate otherwise), and it appearing that defendants wish to question Donna Dull about alleged inconsistencies between the averments in the amended complaint and her earlier deposition testimony, about plaintiff's inability to locate certain photographs requested by the West Manchester Township defendants during the deposition, and about the contents of plaintiff's newly produced calendar journals for the years 2005 through 2007, (see Doc. 67 at 1-2; Doc. 68), and-after an in camera review of Donna Dull's calendar journals and the transcript of her deposition-the court concluding that the averments contained in the original and amended complaints are substantially identical, that plaintiff's original deposition presented defendants with the opportunity to explore inconsistences between her testimony and the allegations presently contained in the amended complaint,*fn2 see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii), that questioning regarding plaintiff's inability to locate the requested photographs would be burdensome and impose undue discovery expense, see id. R. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), and the court further concluding that plaintiff's calendar journals contain discoverable information not addressed in plaintiff's previous deposition testimony, that defendants could not reasonably have known about this information prior to the production of plaintiff's calendar journals, and that permitting defendants to further depose plaintiff Donna Dull would provide them with access to relevant information that was previously inaccessible, see R. 26(b)(1), (2)(C)(i), it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' request for leave of court to conduct a second deposition of plaintiff Donna Dull is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. Defendants' request is GRANTED with respect to the calendar journals for the years 2005 through 2007. Defendants shall be permitted to conduct a second deposition of plaintiff Donna Dull for the limited purpose of inquiring about the contents of the calendar journals and asking reasonable follow-up questions. The direct examination of Donna Dull shall be limited to a period of ninety (90) minutes.

2. Defendants request is DENIED with respect to: (i) Donna Dull's inability to locate the photographs requested during her previous deposition and (ii) the alleged inconsistencies between her previous deposition testimony and the allegations in the amended complaint.*fn3

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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